Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 13, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted
Chia-Lun Chang1,2, Chun-Hua Chen3, Stephen Shei-Dei Yang1,2
1Division of Urology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City, 231, Taiwan.
Abstract:
Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is considered as the gold standard treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Sacrocolpopexy can be performed using open (OSC), laparoscopic (LSC), and robotic-assisted (RSC) approaches. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes between these three approaches for managing pelvic organ prolapse by conducting a systematic review and network meta-analysis. A systematic search was performed in different databases from their earliest records to April 2021 with no restriction on languages. Only randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes between OSC, LSC, and RSC were included in this study. A total of 6 studies with 486 participants were included in this study. Operative time was significantly shorter in OSC than in RSC and LSC. The probability rank showed less estimated blood loss in RSC and lowest overall postoperative complications in LSC. Probability scores also showed best anatomical outcomes for postoperative points C and Bp in RSC and for point Ba in LSC. Despite significantly longer operative time, RSC and LSC may provide better anatomical outcomes, less estimated blood loss, and less overall postoperative complications than OSC. However, this study did not find significant differences between RSC and LSC in efficacy and safety.
