Abdominal versus robotic sacral colpopexy: A detailed analysis of outcomes

Abstract

Aims Although abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) is considered the gold standard for surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse, the open surgical approach has significant morbidity. We aim to compare anatomic and functional outcomes in women receiving either robotic‐assisted sacral colpopexy (RSC) or ASC for post‐hysterectomy prolapse. Methods We present a retrospective chart review of all women who underwent ASC and RSC at our institution and had 12‐month follow‐up (FU). Pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP‐Q) staging was assessed both preoperatively and postoperatively. Perioperative and demographic details were collected from the medical records. Results One hundred twenty four women underwent RSC (mean age 63, median FU 16 months). Those in the ASC group (n = 144) were statistically younger (mean age 60) and had longer FU (median 60 months). Both median day of successful voiding trial and discharge day significantly favored RSC. There were no Clavien Grade IV/V complications for either procedure and three RSC procedures were converted to ASC. Both approaches were associated with a significant improvement in POP‐Q stage at FU, with few women requiring additional surgery. Overall, 76% of women in each group were dry from stress urinary incontinence. Improvement in storage and emptying indices, dyspareunia, and quality of life measures was observed after both approaches. Conclusion RSC demonstrates good support of significant vaginal vault prolapse at medium term FU, with shorter hospital stays and low complication rates. Close FU after RSC over a longer period will be needed to fully assess durability of both functional and anatomic outcomes.

Robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy vs robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in women with primary advanced apical prolapse: A retrospective cohort study

“…15,31,32 To date, there is no consensus on the optimal surgical route to be chosen for POP reconstruction. 4,12,16,33,34 Larouche et al 4 conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in 2021 to analyze the objective and subjective outcomes and complications of each apical suspension procedure. Compared with vaginal apical suspension procedures, sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy (open or minimally invasive) had a lower risk of overall and apical objective failure and a similar subjective failure and reoperation for POP recurrence.…”

“…4,[8][9][10][11] It is commonly used to treat all support defects in women with uterovaginal or posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy, such as laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC), is preferred for managing apical POP, with a shorter recovery time, less blood loss, shorter operating time, [12][13][14] and lower overall and posterior anatomic recurrence than the open abdominal approach.…”

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy

“…Minimally invasive techniques gradually replaced open surgery for this indication given their superiority in terms of postoperative morbidity and patient recovery [ 1 ]. Current published data show that both laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) are better than laparotomy, in terms of blood loss, hospital stay and complications rate, for an at least equivalent anatomic result [ 2 , 3 ]. LSC has become widely available because it is a safe and efficient minimally invasive method, although technically challenging, with a steep learning curve.…”