Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports
Published in: Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports 4/2014

01-12-2014 | Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (A Fader, Section Editor)

Update on Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: Outcomes and Costs

Authors: Jennifer L. Hallock, Jocelyn Fitzgerald, Chi Chiung Grace Chen

Published in: Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate literature published over the past three years regarding outcomes and costs of robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). A total of eight studies were selected that directly compared these techniques: two randomized controlled trials, one prospective trial, and five retrospective trials, with follow-ups ranging from three months to three years. RSC and LSC resulted in similar objective and subjective success rates, quality of life outcomes and overall perioperative complication rates. RSC required similar or longer operative times, caused similar or less blood loss and resulted in more short-term postoperative pain. RSC was also associated with higher costs compared to LSC, but this difference was minimal when excluding the robot purchase cost from calculations. Although complication rates were not significantly different in a majority of the studies, the largest retrospective study demonstrated that RSC resulted in a significant increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism and of a conversion to an open procedure. The ultimate choice of route and method of sacrocolpopexy should be individualized, taking into account the surgeon’s experience and the patient's history and characteristics. In conclusion, RSC is an acceptable alternative to LSC for the management of apical vaginal prolapse, but longer follow-up is needed with studies specifically powered to detect differences in costs and outcomes.
Literature
1.
Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1278–83.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Swift S, Tate SB, Nicholas J. Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:372–9.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Jelovsek JE, Barber MD. Women seeking treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse have decreased body image and quality of life. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1455–61.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hullfish KL, Trowbridge ER, Stukenborg GJ. Treatment strategies for pelvic organ prolapse: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:507–15.PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1201–6.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Smith FJ, Holman CDJ, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1096–100.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, Dieter AA, Myers ER, Sung VW. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol Elsevier. 2011;205:230.e1–5.
11.
Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:116–26.PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805–23.PubMedCrossRef
14.•
Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff GW, Richter HE, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2014;309:2016–24. Outcomes of Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial of abdominal sacrocolpopexy with or without urethropexy, with 59% (126/215) follow-up at 7 years, which found increased anatomic and subjective treatment failure and mesh erosion, between years 2 and 7 postoperatively.CrossRef
15.
Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco A, Weber AM, Cundiff GW, et al. Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:49–55.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
16.
Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:377–84.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Paraiso MFR, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1752–8.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Hsiao KC, Latchamsetty K, Govier FE, Kozlowski P, Kobashi KC. Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. J Endourol. 2007;21:926–30.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Klauschie JL, Suozzi BA, O’Brien MM, McBride AW. A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;20:273–9.CrossRef
20.
Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1089–105.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Parnell BA, Matthews CA. Robot-assisted techniques and outcomes in the realm of pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:412–9.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Li H, Sammon J, Roghmann F, Sood A, Ehlert M, Sun M, et al. Utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse. CUAJ. 2014;8:100–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
23.
Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:435.e1–5.CrossRef
24.
Hoyte L, Rabbanifard R, Mezzich J, Bassaly R, Downes K. Cost analysis of open versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:335–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1201–6.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79:532–6.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Anand M, Woelk JL, Weaver AL, Trabuco EC, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB. Perioperative complications of robotic sacrocolpopexy for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;1–8.
28.
Linder BJ, Elliott DS. Robotic sacrocolpopexy: how does it compare with other prolapse repair techniques? Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14:235–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
31.
Sung HH, Park BH, Ryu DS, Lee KS. Recent advances in robotic surgery in female urology. Int J Urol. 2013;20:1154–62.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Liu H, Lu D, Wang L, Shi G, Song H, Clarke J. Robotic surgery for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1–3.
33.
Gurusamy KS, Samraj K, Fusai G, Davidson BR. Robot assistant versus human or another robot assistant in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;1–28.
34.•
Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005–13. RCT of 35 RSC and 35 LSC post-hysterectomy patients, which found increased cost, operating time, and postoperative pain with RSC; no difference in complications, anatomic or subjective success at 1 year.PubMedCrossRef
35.•
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:5–12. RCT of 40 RSC and 38 LSC, which found increased cost, operating time, and postoperative pain with RSC; no difference in complications, anatomic or subjective success at 6 months.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker M-O, Chartier-Kastler E, et al. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol. 2011;30:393–8.PubMedCrossRef
37.•
Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L, et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:33–7. Retrospective cohort study of 589 ASC, 262 RSC, and 273 LSC, which found increased operative time, conversion to open and risk of VTE with RSC; no difference in anatomic success at 8 months.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, McDonald MA, Shveiky D, Park AJ, Gutman RE, et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:158–61.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Awad N, Mustafa S, Amit A, Deutsch M, Eldor-Itskovitz J, Lowenstein L. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;287:1181–6.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Chan S, Pang S, Cheung TH, Cheung R, Chung T. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17:54–60.PubMed
41.•
Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:44–9. Retrospective cohort study of 43 RSC and 61 LSC post-hysterectomy patients, increased operating time and surgical costs with RSC; no difference in complications, anatomic success, or satisfaction at 29 months.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Elterman DS, Chughtai BI, Vertosick E, Maschino A, Eastham JA, Sandhu JS. Changes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the last decade among United States Urologists. J Urol. 2014;191:1022–7.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies. Eur Urol Eur Assoc Urol. 2014;1–16.
44.
Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;22:205–12.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
45.
Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol Eur Assoc Urol. 2014;65:1128–37.CrossRef
46.
47.
48.
The American Urogynecologic Society. AUGS Position Statement: Laparoscopic Uterine Power Morcellation in Hysterectomy and Myomectomy. Washington D.C; 2014;1–1. Available at: www.​augs.​org/​d/​do/​2872. Retrieved August 10, 2014.
49.
50.
Barbash G, Glied S. New technology and health care costs - the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:701–4.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Nieboer TE, Aarts J. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial- comment. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1357–8.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Mueller ER, Kenton K, Tarnay C, Brubaker L, Rosenman A, Smith B, et al. Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies (ACCESS). Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33:1011–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
53.
Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost- minimization analysis. J Urol. 2012;187:638–43.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:493–9.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Geller EJA, Lin FCB, Matthews CAA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:43–8.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2390–4.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol. 2014;1–7.
58.
Mustafa S, Amit A, Filmar S, Deutsch M, Netzer I, Itskovitz-Eldor J, et al. Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: establishment of a learning curve and short-term outcomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:983–8.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Maher C, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.
Metadata
Title
Update on Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: Outcomes and Costs
Authors
Jennifer L. Hallock
Jocelyn Fitzgerald
Chi Chiung Grace Chen
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports / Issue 4/2014
Electronic ISSN: 2161-3303
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-014-0099-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports 4/2014 Go to the issue

Management of Menopause (K-E Huang, Section Editor)

Menopausal Hormonal Therapy and Cardiovascular Disease

Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (A Fader, Section Editor)

Laparoscopic Management of Pelvic Masses in Pregnancy

Management of Menopause (K-E Huang, Section Editor)

Primary Ovarian Insufficiency

Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (A Fader, Section Editor)

The Outcomes and Cost of Hysterectomy: Comparing Abdominal, Vaginal, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Approaches

Management of Menopause (K-E Huang, Section Editor)

DHEA supplementation in Menopause

Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (A Fader, Section Editor)

Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: Outcomes and Costs