OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare symptomatic and anatomic outcomes 1 year after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy. STUDY DESIGN: Our retrospective cohort study compared women who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) with 1 surgeon to those who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) as part of the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts trial. Our primary outcome was a composite measure of vaginal bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for prolapse. RESULTS: We studied 447 women (125 with RSC and 322 with ASC). Baseline characteristics were similar. There were no significant differences in surgical failures 1 year after surgery based on our primary composite outcome (7/86 [8%] vs 12/304 [4%]; P = .16). When we considered anatomic failure, there were also no significant differences between RSC and ASC (4/70 [6%] vs 16/289 [6%]; P = .57). CONCLUSION: One year after sacrocolpopexy, women who underwent RSC have similar symptomatic and anatomic success compared with those women who underwent ASC.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare symptomatic and anatomic outcomes 1 year after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy. STUDY DESIGN: Our retrospective cohort study compared women who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) with 1 surgeon to those who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) as part of the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts trial. Our primary outcome was a composite measure of vaginal bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for prolapse. RESULTS: We studied 447 women (125 with RSC and 322 with ASC). Baseline characteristics were similar. There were no significant differences in surgical failures 1 year after surgery based on our primary composite outcome (7/86 [8%] vs 12/304 [4%]; P = .16). When we considered anatomic failure, there were also no significant differences between RSC and ASC (4/70 [6%] vs 16/289 [6%]; P = .57). CONCLUSION: One year after sacrocolpopexy, women who underwent RSC have similar symptomatic and anatomic success compared with those women who underwent ASC.
Authors: Mallika Anand; Joshua L Woelk; Amy L Weaver; Emanuel C Trabuco; Christopher J Klingele; John B Gebhart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Catherine O Hudson; Gina M Northington; Robert H Lyles; Deborah R Karp Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Emily A Slopnick; Andrey Petrikovets; David Sheyn; Simon P Kim; Carvell T Nguyen; Adonis K Hijaz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Michele Jonsson Funk; Autumn L Edenfield; Virginia Pate; Anthony G Visco; Alison C Weidner; Jennifer M Wu Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272