The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy with abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing robotic to abdominal sacrocolpopexy with placement of permanent mesh. The primary outcome was vaginal vault support on 6-week postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system examination. Secondary outcomes included blood loss, operative time, length of stay, blood transfusion, pulmonary embolus, gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract injury, ileus, bowel obstruction, postoperative fever, pneumonia, wound infection, and urinary retention. RESULTS: The analysis included 178 patients (73 robotic and 105 abdominal sacrocolpopexy). There were no differences in age, race, or body mass index. Robotic sacrocolpopexy showed slight improvement on POP-Q "C" point (-9 compared with -8, P=.008) when compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy and was associated with less blood loss (103+/-96 mL compared with 255+/-155 mL, P<.001), longer total operative time (328+/-55 minutes compared with 225+/-61 minutes, P<.001), shorter length of stay (1.3+/-0.8 days compared with 2.7+/-1.4 days, P<.001), and a higher incidence of postoperative fever (4.1% compared with 0.0%, P=.04). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. Operative time remained significantly greater in the robotic group (P<.001), and estimated blood loss remained lower (P<.001) when controlling for possible confounders. CONCLUSION: Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrated similar short-term vaginal vault support compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy, with longer operative time, less blood loss, and shorter length of stay. Long-term data are needed to assess the durability of this new minimally invasive procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction
Bump, R. C., Mattiasson, A., Bø, K., Brubaker, L. P., DeLancey, J. O. L., Klarskov, P., Shull, B. L., & Smith, A. R. B. (1996) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0 · Cited by 4,275
Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence
OLSEN, A., SMITH, V, BERGSTROM, J., COLLING, J., & CLARK, A. (1997) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00058-6 · Cited by 3,335
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive Review
Nygaard, I. E., McCreery, R., Brubaker, L., Connolly, A., Cundiff, G., Weber, A. M., & Zyczynski, H. (2004) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.aog.0000139514.90897.07 · Cited by 921
Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997
Boyles, S. H., Weber, A. M., & Meyn, L. (2003) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1067/mob.2003.101 · Cited by 501
Sarlos, D., Brandner, S., Kots, L., Gygax, N., & Schaer, G. N. (2008) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-008-0657-0 · Cited by 124
Daneshgari, F., Kefer, J. C., Moore, C. K., & Kaouk, J. H. (2007) · British Journal of Urology · doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2007.07109.x · Cited by 107
Mesh erosion in abdominal sacral colpopexy with and without concomitant hysterectomy
Wu, J. M., Wells, E. C., Hundley, A. F., Connolly, A., Williams, K. S., & Visco, A. G. (2006) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.051 · Cited by 106
Self-citationElliott, D. S., Frank, I., DiMarco, D. S., & Chow, G. K. (2004) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.022 · Cited by 85
The use of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse
Gadonneix, P., Ercoli, A., Scambia, G., & Villet, R. (2005) · Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/01.gco.0000175355.48802.7b · Cited by 64
Ayav, A., Bresler, L., Brunaud, L., & Boissel, P. (2004) · Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.gassur.2004.06.002 · Cited by 55
Cited by
Robotic Compared With Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Anger, J. T., Mueller, E. R., Tarnay, C., Smith, B., Stroupe, K., Rosenman, A., Brubaker, L., Bresee, C., & Kenton, K. (2014) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000006 · Cited by 263
Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy
Tan-Kim, J., Menefee, S. A., Luber, K. M., Nager, C. W., & Lukacz, E. S. (2011) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1265-3 · Cited by 172
Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial
Costantini, E., Mearini, L., Lazzeri, M., Bini, V., Nunzi, E., di Biase, M., & Porena, M. (2016) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.089 · Cited by 108
De Gouveia De Sa, M., Claydon, L. S., Whitlow, B., & Dolcet Artahona, M. A. (2016) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2765-y · Cited by 97
Myers, E. M., Siff, L., Osmundsen, B., Geller, E., & Matthews, C. A. (2015) · International Urogynecology Journal · doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2551-2 · Cited by 53
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Geller, E. J., Siddiqui, N. Y., Wu, J. M., & Visco, A. G.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1201-1206
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970757506
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 12.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aog.0b013e31818ce394
- The paper
- Geller, E. J., Siddiqui, N. Y., Wu, J. M., & Visco, A. G. (2008). Short-Term Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31818ce394
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
