A Review of the Current Status of Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Abstract

ContextAbdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) represents the superior treatment for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) but is associated with increased length of stay, analgesic requirement, and cost compared with transvaginal procedures. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC) may offer shorter postoperative recovery while maintaining equivalent rates of cure. ObjectiveThis review evaluates the literature on LSC and RSC for clinical outcomes and complications. Evidence acquisitionA PubMed search of the available literature from 1966 to 2013 on LSC and RSC with a follow-up of at least 12 mo was performed. A total of 256 articles were screened, 69 articles selected, and outcomes from 26 presented. A review, not meta-analysis, was conducted due to the quality of the articles. Evidence synthesisLSC has become a mature technique with results from 11 patient series encompassing 1221 patients with a mean follow-up of 26 mo. Mean operative time was 124min (range: 55–185) with a 3% (range: 0–11%) conversion rate. Objective cure was achieved in 91% of patients, with similar satisfaction rates (92%). Six patient series encompassing 363 patients treated with RSC with a mean follow-up of 28 mo have been reported. Mean operative time was 202min (range: 161–288) with a 1% (range: 0–4%) conversion rate. Objective cure rate was 94%, with a 95% subjective success rate. Overall, early outcomes and complication rates for both LSC and RSC appeared comparable with open ASC. ConclusionsLSC and RSC provide excellent short- to medium-term reconstructive outcomes for patients with POP. RSC is more expensive than LSC. Further studies are required to better understand the clinical performance of RSC versus LSC and confirm long-term efficacy. Patient summaryLaparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy represent attractive minimally invasive alternatives to abdominal sacrocolpopexy. They may offer reduced patient morbidity but are associated with higher costs.