ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2026
Robot-assisted, Laparoscopic and Transvaginal Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a Comparative Retrospective Single-Center Study.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisSurgical management for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is anything but standardized. We aimed to compare operating times, hospital stay, complications, and reinterventions following robot-assisted surgery (RAS), laparoscopy (LPS), or transvaginal surgery (TVS) for POP repair
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed records from our hospital (January 2017-December 2023), including women receiving RAS or LPS (lateral suspension/sacrocolpopexy), or TVS (hysterectomy with POP repair). Cysto/rectopexies without hysterectomy were excluded. Surgical technique was determined from operative descriptions. Outcomes included: 1) operating time; 2) hospital stay; 3) complications; 4) reinterventions. Surgical route was the exposure variable. Adjusted linear, Poisson, logistic, and Cox regressions were used. A sub-analysis on lateral suspension and sacrocolpopexy was performed.
resultsOf 583 women, 14.4% had LPS, 48.5% RAS, and 37.1% TVS. Adjusted models showed longer operating times for LPS vs RAS (+ 21.6 min, 95% CI + 8.7 to + 34.4) and shorter for TVS (-62.7 min, 95% CI -72.9 to -52.5). Hospitalization length was similar for LPS vs RAS, while longer for TVS (+ 0.5 days, 95% CI + 0.3 to + 0.7). Reinterventions and complications did not differ between groups. In sub-analysis, no differences in operating times and length of stay for lateral suspension were observed. For sacrocolpopexy, LPS was longer than RAS (+ 54.1 min, 95% CI + 30.3 to + 77.8); no difference in hospital stay emerged.
conclusionsRAS and LPS had similar safety and reintervention profiles. LPS was linked to longer operating times than RAS, and similar hospital stay. TVS had shorter operating times but required longer hospitalization. Sub-analyses suggested comparable performance for lateral suspension, while LPS sacrocolpopexy was more time-consuming than RAS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.