[en] [en] INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy (SC) is the gold standard for managing symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Robot-assisted laparoscopy (RSC) offers a promising surgical option compared to conventional laparoscopy (LSC). This study compares the clinical and operative outcomes of these techniques to determine if RSC is superior to LSC.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-center study in the Gynecology Department at the Citadelle Hospital in Liège, Belgium. Data from all patients who underwent SC between January 2019 and December 2023 were collected. We evaluated demographic and clinical data, perioperative complications, operative time (OT), length of stay, risk of recurrence and follow-up duration. Statistical analysis was performed to compare outcomes between the groups.
RESULTS: Data from 208 patients (97 LSC and 111 RSC) were analyzed. No significant differences were found between the groups. A higher body mass index trend was observed in the RSC group (mean BMI: 26.63, range: 20-43) compared to the LSC group (mean BMI: 25.45, range: 15-34; p = 0.0625). The median OT was similar (LSC: 111 min vs RSC 119 min; p = 0.104), with a notable reduction in OT compared to the literature. Additionally, more RSC procedures could be performed per day (3 RSC vs. a maximum of 2 for LSC).
CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted laparoscopy was not demonstrated to be superior to LSC. However, both procedures had comparable OT, significantly shorter than previously reported. RSC's operational efficiency might allow for a higher number of daily procedures, translating into practical benefits in clinical settings.
Disciplines :
Reproductive medicine (gynecology, andrology, obstetrics)
Author, co-author :
Dehan, Chloé; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Liège, Hospital La Citadelle, Boulevard du 12 e de Ligne, n°1, 4000, Liège, Belgium
Marcelle, Sarah; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Liège, Hospital La Citadelle, Boulevard du 12 e de Ligne, n°1, 4000, Liège, Belgium
Nisolle, Michelle ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Gynécologie-obstétrique, partim Gynécologie
Munaut, Carine ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences biomédicales et précliniques
C. Maher B. Feiner K. Baessler C. Schmid Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013 30 4 CD004014
N.Y. Siddiqui C.L. Grimes E.R. Casiano H.T. Abed P.C. Jeppson C.K. Olivera et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis Obstet Gynecol 2015 125 1 44 55 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000570 25560102 4352548
P. Campbell L. Cloney S. Jha Abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Obstet Gynecol Surv 2016 71 7 435 442 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000335 27436178
M. De Gouveia De Sa L.S. Claydon B. Whitlow M.A. Dolcet Artahona Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int Urogynecol J 2016 27 1 3 17 10.1007/s00192-015-2765-y 26249236
P.A. Nosti U. Umoh Andy S. Kane D.E. White H.S. Harvie L. Lowenstein et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2014 20 1 33 37 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036 24368486
J. Yang Y. He X. Zhang Z. Wang X. Zuo L. Gao et al. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ann Transl Med 2021 9 6 449 10.21037/atm-20-4347 33850846 8039662
A.O. Mozon J.H. Kim S.R. Lee Robotic sacrocolpopexy Obstet Gynecol Sci 2024 67 2 212 217 10.5468/ogs.23226 38246693 10948206
C.L. Chang C.H. Chen S.J. Chang Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse Int Urogynecol J 2022 33 2 297 308 10.1007/s00192-021-04741-x 33760992
T. Simoncini A. Panattoni M. Aktas J. Ampe C. Betschart A.L.A. Bloemendaal et al. Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users Surg Endosc 2023 37 7 5215 5225 10.1007/s00464-023-10001-4 36952046 10035464
L.G. Bordeianou J.T. Anger M. Boutros E. Birnbaum J.C. Carmichael K.A. Connell et al. Measuring pelvic floor disorder symptoms using patient-reported instruments: Proceedings of the Consensus Meeting of the Pelvic Floor Consortium of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, and the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction Urogynecology 2020 26 1 1
F. van Zanten S.E. Schraffordt Koops O.E. O’Sullivan E. Lenters I. Broeders B.A. O’Reilly Robot-assisted surgery for the management of apical prolapse: a bi-centre prospective cohort study BJOG 2019 126 8 1065 1073 10.1111/1471-0528.15696 30924606
A.P. Advincula M.D. Truong ExCITE: Minimally invasive tissue extraction made simple with simulation OBG Manag 2015 27 12 40 45
D. Mitropoulos W. Artibani M. Graefen M. Remzi M. Rouprêt M. Truss et al. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations Eur Urol 2012 61 2 341 349 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.033 22074761
P.J. Yong J. Thurston S.S. Singh C. Allaire Guideline no. 386—gynaecologic surgery for patients with obesity J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2019 41 9 1356 1370.e7 10.1016/j.jogc.2018.12.005 31443850
L.M. Kissane R. Calixte B. Grigorescu P. Finamore A. Vintzileos Impact of obesity on robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017 24 1 36 40 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.10.012 27810437
J.T. Wei I. Nygaard H.E. Richter C.W. Nager M.D. Barber K. Kenton et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair N Engl J Med 2012 366 25 2358 2367 10.1056/NEJMoa1111967 22716974 3433843
K. Baessler C. Christmann-Schmid C. Maher N. Haya T.J. Crawford J. Brown Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018 8 8 CD013108 30121956
M. De Gouveia De Sa L.S. Claydon B. Whitlow M.A. Dolcet Artahona Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int Urogynecol J 2016 27 3 355 366 10.1007/s00192-015-2763-0 26249235
J. Tan-Kim S.A. Menefee K.M. Luber C.W. Nager E.S. Lukacz Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2011 17 1 44 49 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf 22453672
K. Pan Y. Zhang Y. Wang Y. Wang H. Xu A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016 132 3 284 291 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.08.008 26797199
H.G. Deshpande C.S. Madkar S.R. Kiwalkar Relationship of decubitus ulcer on cervix in pelvic organ prolapse with POP-Q staging J Obstet Gynaecol India 2019 69 3 266 271 10.1007/s13224-018-1127-3 31178643
A. Ploumidis A.F. Spinoit G. De Naeyer P. Schatteman M. Gan V. Ficarra et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and outcomes at a single high-volume institution Eur Urol 2014 65 1 138 145 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.054 23806518
C. Teplitz The learning curve deskbook: a reference guide to theory, calculations, and applications 1991 New York Quorum
A. Shugaba J.E. Lambert T.M. Bampouras H.E. Nuttall C.J. Gaffney D.A. Subar Should all minimal access surgery be robot-assisted? A systematic review into the musculoskeletal and cognitive demands of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery J Gastrointest Surg 2022 26 7 1520 1530 10.1007/s11605-022-05319-8 35426034 9296389
