Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy

Objective: This study aimed to compare operative times and short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using a convenience samplewas performed comparing patients who underwent robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy during a 4-year period. Operative time, blood loss, perioperative complications, and objective cure of prolapse at 3 months were compared. Results: Robotic procedures in 65 women and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy procedures in 23 women were performed. Median preoperative prolapse was stage 3 for both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the median operative time between the robotic and laparoscopic groups, although this did not include robot setup time and did include concurrent procedures that differed significantly between groups (334 vs 325 minutes, P = 0.30). Estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group (50 vs 100 mL, P = 0.003). Median hospital stay was 1 day in both groups (P = 0.23). There were no differences in overall objective cure rates between robotic and laparoscopic groups at 3 months of follow-up (87.1% vs 91.3%, P = 0.72). Perioperative complications, including visceral injury and mesh erosion, did not differ significantly between these groups. Conclusions: Robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy had similar operative times, short-term anatomic cure rates, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay.