ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2026
Reproductive and clinical outcomes after minimally invasive isthmocele repair: a comparison of robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCaesarean scar defect (CSD), also known as an isthmocele or niche, is a common consequence of caesarean delivery, associated with chronic inflammation, abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, and infertility, though some patients remain asymptomatic. Minimally invasive isthmocele repair (MIIR) has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for symptomatic women and those seeking fertility, yet evidence guiding optimal surgical management remains limited. In particular, data on reproductive outcomes are scarce and largely based on small, heterogeneous case series. To our knowledge, there are no data from direct comparisons between robotic-assisted (RAIR) and conventional laparoscopic (LIR) isthmocele repairs.
methodsThis monocentric retrospective study included patients undergoing RAIR and LIR at the University Hospital Bonn between December 2019 and March 2026. The primary objective was to determine the live-birth rate after MIIR in women attempting conception. Secondary objectives included evaluating patient-reported outcomes, such as symptom relief, and objective outcomes, including changes in niche length, niche depth, and residual myometrial thickness, as well as obstetric outcomes in subsequent pregnancies, and comparisons between RAIR and LIR.
resultsTwenty-eight patients underwent CSD surgery, including 21 RAIR and 7 LIR procedures. Follow-up was available in 82% of patients (median 4 months). No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred. Among women attempting conception (n = 8), the live-birth rate was 75% (6/8), with equal distribution between groups. In the RAIR group, a significant decrease in niche length and niche depth as well as a significant increase in myometrial thickness were observed between pre- and postoperative. In the LIR group, similar trends were noted that did not reach statistical significance. Between-group comparisons showed no significant differences in postoperative imaging outcomes. Symptom improvement was reported in the majority of patients, particularly regarding abnormal uterine bleeding and pelvic pain. Obstetric outcomes included one uterine scar dehiscence and one placenta accreta spectrum disorder (each 3.6%), both occurring after RAIR.
conclusionMIIR and especially RAIR represent a promising fertility-preserving and symptom-improving option for patients with CSD. REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under the number DRKS00038857 on April 15th 2026.
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.