Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 421

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Laparoscopic Compared With Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Paraiso, Marie Fidela R., Jelovsek, J. Eric, Frick, Anna, Chen, Chi Chung Grace, Barber, Matthew D.·2011·Obstetrics & Gynecology
DOI 10.1097/aog.0b013e318231537c
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare conventional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal apex prolapse. METHODS: This single-center, blinded randomized trial included participants with stage 2-4 posthysterectomy vaginal prolapse. Participants were randomized to laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. The primary outcome was total operative time from incision to closure. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, functional activity, bowel and bladder symptoms, quality of life, anatomic vaginal support, and cost from a health care system perspective. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients enrolled and were randomized (laparoscopic n=38; robotic n=40). Total operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (+67-minute difference; 95% confidence interval [CI] 43-89; P<.001). Anesthesia time, total time in the operating room, total sacrocolpopexy time, and total suturing time were all significantly longer in the robotic group. Participants in the robotic group also had significantly higher pain at rest and with activity during weeks 3 through 5 after surgery and required longer use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (median, 20 compared with 11 days, P<.005). The robotic group incurred greater cost than the laparoscopic group (mean difference +$1,936; 95% CI $417-$3,454; P=.008). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in vaginal support and functional outcomes 1 year after surgery with no differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy results in longer operating time and increased pain and cost compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aog.0b013e318231537c

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Subak, 2001, Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States., Obstet Gynecol, 98, 646
  2. Nygaard, 2004, . Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review., Obstet Gynecol, 104, 805, 10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Maher, 2008, Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review., Neurourol Urodyn, 27, 3, 10.1002/nau.20542 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Cosson, 2002, Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, hysterectomy, and burch colposuspension: feasibility and short-term complications of 77 procedures., JSLS, 6, 115
  5. Nezhat, 1994, Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse., Obstet Gynecol, 84, 885
  6. Ostrzenski, 1996, Laparoscopic colposuspension for total vaginal prolapse., Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 55, 147, 10.1016/S0020-7292(96)02731-2 · DOI
  7. Paraiso, 2005, Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study., Am J Obstet Gynecol, 192, 1752, 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.051 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Klauschie, 2009, A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences., Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 20, 273, 10.1007/s00192-008-0768-7 · DOI
  9. Hsiao, 2007, Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse., J Endourol, 21, 926, 10.1089/end.2006.0381 · DOI
  10. Geller, 2008, Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy., Obstet Gynecol, 112, 1201, 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Reza, 2010, Meta-analysis of observational studies on the safety and effectiveness of robotic gynaecological surgery., Br J Surg, 97, 1772, 10.1002/bjs.7269 · DOI
  12. Bump, 1996, . The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction., Am J Obstet Gynecol, 175, 10, 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Barber, 2005, Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7)., Am J Obstet Gynecol, 193, 103, 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Barber, 2001, Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders., Am J Obstet Gynecol, 185, 1388, 10.1067/mob.2001.118659 · DOI · Paper page
  15. McCarthy, 2005, . Assessment of patient functional status after surgery., J Am Coll Surg, 201, 171, 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.03.035 · DOI
  16. Elliott, 2004, Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse., Am J Surg, 188, 52S, 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2004.08.022 · DOI
  17. Brown, 1992, A test for the difference between two treatments in a continuous measure of outcome when there are dropouts., Control Clin Trials, 13, 213, 10.1016/0197-2456(92)90004-J · DOI
  18. Barbash, 2010, New technology and health care coststhe case of robot-assisted surgery., N Engl J Med, 363, 701, 10.1056/NEJMp1006602 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Tan-Kim, 2011, Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs, and outcomes., Female Pelv Med Reconst Surg, 17, 44, 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf · DOI
  20. Chandra, 2010, . A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices., Surgery, 147, 830, 10.1016/j.surg.2009.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Patel, 2009, A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy., Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct, 20, 223, 10.1007/s00192-008-0744-2 · DOI
  22. Judd, 2010, Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy., J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 17, 493, 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.011 · DOI

Cited by

See all 421

Metadata

Authors
Paraiso, M. F. R., Jelovsek, J. E., Frick, A., Chen, C. C. G., & Barber, M. D.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2011-11
Volume
118
Issue
5
Pages
1005-1013
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/aog.0b013e318231537c
OpenAlex
W2137550346
Cited by
421
References
1
FWCI
24.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Laparoscopic Compared With Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aog.0b013e318231537c
The paper
Paraiso, M. F. R., Jelovsek, J. E., Frick, A., Chen, C. C. G., & Barber, M. D. (2011). Laparoscopic Compared With Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e318231537c

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.