Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42543563›Full record

ArticleColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2026

Cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of combined versus isolated robotic rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair: A multicentre prospective cohort study.

Shannon L Wallace, James W Ogilvie, Liliana Bordeianou, Michelle Earley, Raisa Platte, Milena M Weinstein, Eric R Sokol, Ekene A Enemchukwu, Kavita Mishra, Brooke H Gurland

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Shannon L WallaceDivision of Urogynaecology and Pelvic Floor Disorders, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-9593
James W OgilvieDivision of Colorectal Surgery and Pelvic Floor Reconstruction, Corewell Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4789-0704
Liliana BordeianouDepartment of Surgery, Pelvic Floor Disorders Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Michelle EarleyDepartment of Surgery, Pelvic Health Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Raisa PlatteDivision of Colorectal Surgery and Pelvic Floor Reconstruction, Corewell Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4303-9485
Milena M WeinsteinDepartment of Surgery, Pelvic Floor Disorders Center, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9350-6953
Eric R SokolDepartment of Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Ekene A EnemchukwuDepartment of Urology, Pelvic Health Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6224-6207
Kavita MishraDepartment of Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Brooke H GurlandDepartment of Surgery, Pelvic Health Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3868-7747

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimRectal prolapse (RP) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) frequently coexist, yet are often evaluated and treated separately. This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness of combined versus isolated robotic prolapse repair.

methodsWe conducted a prospective multicentre cohort study across three tertiary pelvic floor centres. Women undergoing robotic rectal prolapse repair (rRP), robotic pelvic organ prolapse repair (rPOP) or combined robotic repair (rRP + rPOP) were included. Validated patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and 12 months. Health utility was derived from EQ-5D-3L and used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the healthcare sector perspective. A theoretical cohort was modelled to examine staged versus combined repair in patients with multicompartment prolapse.

resultsForty-seven patients were included (rRP n = 14, rPOP n = 16, rRP + rPOP n = 17). All groups demonstrated significant improvement in pelvic floor symptoms and quality of life at 12 months. Improvements across bowel, bladder and prolapse-related domains were greatest in the combined repair group. Health utility gains were observed in all cohorts. In patients with multicompartment prolapse, combined robotic repair was cost-effective, whereas staged procedures were associated with higher cumulative costs without proportional gains in QALYs.

conclusionsWithin robotic prolapse surgery, combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair provides the most comprehensive symptom improvement and represents a cost-effective strategy when both compartments are symptomatic. These findings support systematic evaluation for multicompartment prolapse and multidisciplinary surgical planning.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPelvic Organ ProlapseRectal ProlapseRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedColorectal Surgical ProceduresCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeTreatment Outcomecost‐effectiveness analysispatient‐reported outcome measurespelvic organ prolapserectal prolapserobotic surgical proceduresventral mesh rectopexy

Identifiers

PMID42543563
PMCPMC13429890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.