Robotic sacrocolpopexy

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

There was no significant difference in adverse event rates or severity between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups based on an indexed severity score (p=0.868), with 6 AE in the robotic arm

Effect: null; indexed AE severity p = 0.868

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91

At 6 months, there was no difference between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy groups in POPQ measurements, PFDI/PFIQ subscales, recurrent urinary incontinence symptoms, subsequent sling surgery

Effect: null; EQ-5D 0.90 vs 0.91