About this item:

1,141 Views | 0 Downloads

Author Notes:

Email Address: debby.karp@emory.edu

Financial Disclosure: No funding was received for this work.

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.


Research Funding:

Dr. Lyles’ work was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1TR000454.


  • sacrocolpopexy
  • robotics
  • pelvic organ prolapse
  • mesh erosion

Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis


Journal Title:

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery


Volume 20, Number 5


, Pages 252-260

Type of Work:

Article | Post-print: After Peer Review


Objectives: Robotic sacrocolpopexy has been rapidly incorporated into surgical practice without comprehensive and systematically published outcome data. The aim of this study was to systematically review the currently published peer-reviewed literature on robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with more than 6 months of anatomic outcome data. Methods: Studies were selected after applying predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria to a MEDLINE search. Two independent reviewers blinded to each other's results abstracted demographic data, perioperative information, and postoperative outcomes. The primary outcome assessed was anatomic success rate defined as less than or equal to pelvic organ prolapse quantification system(POP-Q) stage 1. A random effects model was performed for the meta-analysis of selected outcomes. Results: Thirteen studies were selected for the systematic review. Metaanalysis yielded a combined estimated success rate of 98.6% (95% confidence interval, 97.0%Y100%). The combined estimated rate of mesh exposure/erosion was 4.1% (95% confidence interval, 1.4%Y6.9%), and the rate of reoperation formesh revision was 1.7%. The rates of reoperation for recurrent apical and nonapical prolapse were 0.8% and 2.5%, respectively. The most common surgical complication (excluding mesh erosion) was cystotomy (2.8%), followed by wound infection (2.4%). Conclusions: The outcomes of this analysis indicate that robotic sacrocolpopexy is an effective surgical treatment of apical prolapse with high anatomic cure rate and low rate of complications.

Copyright information:

©2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Export to EndNote