Postoperative Pain

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6

Women in the robotic sacrocolpopexy group reported significantly more pain at normal activities at 1 week (3.5 +/- 2.1 vs 2.6 +/- 2.2, p=0.044), more unpleasantness of worst pain (2.4 +/- 2.0 vs 1.8 +

Effect: adverse; 3.5 vs 2.6