Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evolution toward early stent removal and reduced antibiotic prophylaxis post-cystectomy.

The Canadian journal of urology·2026
Same author

A Global Consensus Conference on Surgical Management of Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse and Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Combining Evidence with Expert Opinion.

International urogynecology journal·2026
Same author

Unequal Utilization of Overactive Bladder Treatment: The Role of Socioeconomic and Insurance Disparities.

Neurourology and urodynamics·2026
Same author

Patients' Perspectives and Challenges with Sacral Neuromodulation Implantable Pulse Generator.

International urogynecology journal·2026
Same author

Polypropylene mesh degradation and systemic disease: biological plausibility is not clinical evidence.

Nature reviews. Urology·2026
Same author

Navigating the challenges of overactive bladder management in women.

World journal of urology·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 15, 2026

Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
03:30

Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy

Published on: October 25, 2024

2.9K

Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Kamran P Sajadi1, Howard B Goldman2

  • 1Department of Urology, Oregon Health &Science University, CH10U, 3303 SW Bond Avenue, Portland, OR 97239, USA.

Nature Reviews. Urology
|March 25, 2015
PubMed
Summary

Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) offers comparable efficacy to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) with a shorter recovery. While the learning curve is manageable, long-term outcomes require further study.

More Related Videos

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
12:10

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: May 19, 2022

10.0K
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
12:45

Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer

Published on: February 12, 2022

7.0K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 15, 2026

Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
03:30

Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy

Published on: October 25, 2024

2.9K
Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
12:10

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: May 19, 2022

10.0K
Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer
12:45

Robot-assisted Total Mesorectal Excision and Lateral Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection for Locally Advanced Middle-low Rectal Cancer

Published on: February 12, 2022

7.0K

Area of Science:

  • Urology
  • Gynecology
  • Minimally Invasive Surgery

Background:

  • Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has emerged as a popular surgical approach.
  • It is compared to traditional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC).

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the efficacy, learning curve, and outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy.
  • To compare RSC with established surgical methods for pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing evidence on robotic sacrocolpopexy techniques and outcomes.
  • Comparative analysis of RSC against LSC and ASC regarding efficacy, complications, and recovery.

Main Results:

  • RSC demonstrates comparable efficacy to ASC, with evidence supporting its effectiveness.
  • Shorter hospital stays and convalescence periods are associated with RSC compared to ASC.
  • The learning curve for RSC is estimated at 10-20 procedures, potentially shorter for experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Conclusions:

  • Robotic sacrocolpopexy is an effective treatment option with benefits in recovery time.
  • Meticulous surgical technique is crucial for minimizing potential complications.
  • Long-term outcomes beyond a few years are still under investigation.