Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 2022-02, Vol.33 (2), p.297-308
• Main Authors: Chang, Chia-Lun, Chen, Chun-Hua, Chang, Shang-Jen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods; Gynecology; Humans; Laparoscopy; Laparoscopy - adverse effects; Laparoscopy - methods; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Article; Pelvic organ prolapse; Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; Robotics; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects; Treatment Outcome; Urology
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04741-x

Introduction and hypothesis Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is regarded as the gold standard for management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Nowadays, minimally invasive surgeries are preferred, and sacrocolpopexy can be performed using either a laparoscopic or robotic-assisted approach. The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We performed a systematic literature review of different databases and related references from their inception until July 2020 without language restrictions. All randomized control trials and comparative studies that compared RASC and LSC for the management of POP were included. Results A total of 13 studies including 2115 participants were included for the pooled analysis. The pooled results revealed that RASC was associated with a significantly longer operative time (weighted mean difference, 29.53 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.88 to 46.18 min, P  = 0.0005), significantly less estimated blood loss (weighted mean difference, −86.52 ml; 95% CI −130.26 to −42.79 ml, P  = 0.0001), significantly fewer overall intraoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.6; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91; P  = 0.01) and significantly lower conversion rate (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; P  = 0.01) compared with LSC. There were no significant differences between the length of hospital stays, overall postoperative complications, postoperative stress incontinence, mesh erosion and effectiveness between the two groups. Conclusion The current study showed comparable efficacy between RASC and LSC. Though RASC was associated with less blood loss and a lower conversion rate, the differences were not clinically significant. The choice of surgical procedure with either RASC or LSC is according to surgeon discretion and patient preferences.