Robotic Vs Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: 44-Month Pelvic Floor Outcomes

ObjectiveTo evaluate longer-term clinical outcomes after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).Material and MethodsThis 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionRobotic 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.