SynthesisInternational urogynecology journal2025
The Safety of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Robotic vs Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy During the Early Training Phase: A Single Center Study.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisThe aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSP) compared with other approaches of sacrocolpopexy and vaginal surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
methodsThe search was performed on studies published prior to May 2024. The inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized trials involving adult women with POP. Exclusion criteria comprised other forms of intervention treatments and articles lacking comparative analyses. This study adhered to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome framework, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 checklist, and was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.
resultsThe systematic review included 36 studies, whereas the meta-analysis included 30 studies. RSP demonstrated superior outcomes compared with laparoscopic (LSP), abdominal (ASP), and vaginal surgery (VS) approaches, with fewer perioperative complications (p < 0.00001 for RSP vs ASP; p = 0.01 for RSP vs VS), reduced blood loss (total p < 0.00001 for RSP vs LSP, ASP, and VS), and shorter hospital stays (p = 0.003 for RSP vs LSP; p = 0.27 for RSP vs VS). Additionally, RSP had fewer surgical conversions than LSP (p = 0.01). However, LSP and VS showed significantly shorter operation times than RSP (p < 0.00001).
conclusionsRobot-assisted sacrocolpopexy may offer advantages in reducing blood loss compared with VS and shortening hospital stays compared with LSP. Sensitivity analyses, however, revealed no significant differences in perioperative complications or blood loss compared with LSP and ASP. Further high-quality randomized studies are necessary to confirm the safety and efficacy of RSP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40504247What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.