Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2026
Laparoscopic Non-Mesh Cerclage Pectopexy with Uterine Preservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Published on: October 25, 2024
Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes
Elizabeth J Geller1, Brent A Parnell, Gena C Dunivan
1Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7570, USA. egeller@med.unc.edu
Objective:
To evaluate longer-term clinical outcomes after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
Material And Methods:
This was a retrospective cohort assessment of women undergoing either robotic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy between March 2006 and October 2007. Pelvic floor support was measured using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination, and pelvic floor function was assessed via validated questionnaires, including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12).
Results:
The analysis included 51 subjects: 23 robotic and 28 abdominal. Mean time since surgery was 44.2 ± 6.4 months. Postoperative POP-Q improved similarly from baseline in both the robotic and abdominal groups: C (-8 vs -7), Aa (-2.5 vs -2.25), Ap (-2 vs -2) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Pelvic floor function also improved similarly in both groups: PFDI-20 (61.0 vs 54.7), PFIQ-7 (19.1 vs 15.7), with high sexual function PISQ-12 (35.1 vs 33.1) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Two mesh exposures occurred in each group for a rate of 8% and 7%, respectively.
Conclusion:
Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrates similar long-term outcomes compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The robotic approach offers an effective treatment alternative to abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the lasting treatment of advanced POP.
