Abdominal versus robotic sacral colpopexy: A detailed analysis of outcomes

Although abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) is considered the gold standard for surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse, the open surgical approach has significant morbidity. We aim to compare anatomic and functional outcomes in women receiving either robotic-assisted sacral colpopexy (RSC) or ASC for post-hysterectomy prolapse.

We present a retrospective chart review of all women who underwent ASC and RSC at our institution and had 12-month follow-up (FU). Pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) staging was assessed both preoperatively and postoperatively. Perioperative and demographic details were collected from the medical records.

One hundred twenty four women underwent RSC (mean age 63, median FU 16 months). Those in the ASC group (n = 144) were statistically younger (mean age 60) and had longer FU (median 60 months). Both median day of successful voiding trial and discharge day significantly favored RSC. There were no Clavien Grade IV/V complications for either procedure and three RSC procedures were converted to ASC. Both approaches were associated with a significant improvement in POP-Q stage at FU, with few women requiring additional surgery. Overall, 76% of women in each group were dry from stress urinary incontinence. Improvement in storage and emptying indices, dyspareunia, and quality of life measures was observed after both approaches.

RSC demonstrates good support of significant vaginal vault prolapse at medium term FU, with shorter hospital stays and low complication rates. Close FU after RSC over a longer period will be needed to fully assess durability of both functional and anatomic outcomes.