Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Mar;67(2):212-217.
doi: 10.5468/ogs.23226. Epub 2024 Jan 18.

Robotic sacrocolpopexy

Al-Otaibi Mozon  1 , Ju Hee Kim  2 , Sa Ra Lee  2
Affiliations

Robotic sacrocolpopexy

Al-Otaibi Mozon et al. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2024 Mar.

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common cause of gynecological disease in elderly women. The prevalence of POP has increased with an aging society. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) is safer and more effective than the vaginal approach in patients with apical compartment POP because it has a higher anatomical cure rate, a lower recurrence rate, less dyspareunia, and improved sexual function. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has replaced ASC. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) also helps overcome the challenges of LSC by facilitating deep pelvic dissection and multiple intracorporeal suturing. The RSC is technically easy to apply, has a steep learning curve, and offers many advantages over the LSC. However, insufficient data led us to conclude that the LSC is superior overall, especially in terms of costeffectiveness. The present review provides insights into different aspects of RSC, highlighting the most common benefits and concerns of this procedure. We searched for eligible articles discussing this issue from January 2019 to March 2022 to reveal the outcomes of RSC.

Keywords: Minimally invasive surgical procedures; Pelvic organ prolapse; Robotic surgical procedure; Sacrocolpopexy; Surgical mesh.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

References

    1. Shek KL, Dietz HP. Assessment of pelvic organ prolapse: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48:681–92. - PubMed
    1. Nam G, Lee SR, Kim SH, Chae HD. Importance of trans-labial ultrasound for the diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse and its correlation with the POP-Q examination: analysis of 363 cases. J Clin Med. 2021;10:4267. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown JS, Waetjen LE, Subak LL, Thom DH, Van den Eeden S, Vittinghoff E. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:712–6. - PubMed
    1. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1096–100. - PubMed
    1. Løwenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:49–55. - PubMed