» Articles » PMID: 21979458

Laparoscopic Compared with Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse: a Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview
Journal Obstet Gynecol
Date 2011 Oct 8
PMID 21979458
Citations 117
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

The Learning Curve in Urogynecology and Functional Urology: A Systematic Review.

Salehi-Pourmehr H, Tahmasbi F, Hosseinpour S, Nouri O, Lotfi B, Iranmanesh P Int Urogynecol J. 2025; .

PMID: 39820367 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-06016-7.


New Rat Model Mimicking Sacrocolpopexy for POP Treatment and Biomaterials Testing via Unilateral Presacral Suspension.

Lu C, Zhou J, Kong Q, Wang L, Ni W, Xiao Z Int Urogynecol J. 2025; 36(2):421-429.

PMID: 39777526 PMC: 11850470. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-06019-4.


Application of CUSUM analysis in assessing learning curves in robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy performed by experienced gynecologist.

Park K, Kwon J, Yoo E, Lee S, Song J, Pyeon S BMC Surg. 2024; 24(1):385.

PMID: 39633315 PMC: 11619684. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02691-x.


Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It.

Shahid U, Chen Z, Maher C Int Urogynecol J. 2024; 35(11):2107-2123.

PMID: 39404818 PMC: 11638296. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-05922-0.


Comparison of postoperative pain in robotic and laparoscopic myomectomy: a retrospective cohort study.

Wu Y, Hong M, Ding D J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):345.

PMID: 39311983 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-02105-3.