ArticleCureus2026
Robotic Ileal Neovaginoplasty for Vaginal Reconstruction: A Report of Two Cases.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neovaginal reconstruction remains technically challenging in patients with congenital or acquired vaginal agenesis. Ileal segment vaginoplasty is a well-established option because of its favorable mucosal characteristics, natural lubrication, and long-term patency. Robotic-assisted surgery provides enhanced precision, improved ergonomics, and superior access to the deep pelvis, making it well-suited for complex reconstructive procedures. This case series reports two patients with vaginal agenesis who underwent robotic-assisted ileal neovaginoplasty using a standard four-port robotic platform. A 10 cm segment of terminal ileum was isolated with intact mesentery, mobilized, and anastomosed to a surgically created neovaginal canal after pelvic dissection. Both patients had uneventful intraoperative and postoperative courses, with minimal blood loss and operative times of 120 and 165 minutes. Recovery was smooth, with early ambulation and discharge on postoperative day four. At six-month follow-up, both patients had stable neovaginal depth, good cosmesis, and satisfactory functional outcomes without stenosis or significant mucous discharge. Robotic ileal neovaginoplasty appears to be a safe and effective minimally invasive option for vaginal reconstruction in selected patients.
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.