OBJECTIVES: To review the role of robot- assisted laparoscopic colposacropexy (RALCS) as a treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) accordingly with the available literature and our own experience. METHODS: We have analyzed the studies with the results of robot-assisted colposacropexy (RALCS) and others in which this technique is compared with the abdominal (ACS) and/or the laparoscopic approach (LCS), including our own series. The main data collected are surgical time, blood loss, complications, clinical outcomes, quality of life and the different costs of LCS versus RALCS. We have reviewed the last systematic reviews and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were similar within both RALCS and LCS, surgical time was a bit longer for the robot-assisted compared with laparoscopy, blood loss was similar, as complications. The costs of RALCS were significantly higher than those of LCS, although we must conseconsider that the different studies used different variables to measure them. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that comparative studies are necessary, it is reasonable to assume that RALCS is a feasible and secure technique for the treatment of POP.
OBJECTIVES: To review the role of robot- assisted laparoscopic colposacropexy (RALCS) as a treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) accordingly with the available literature and our own experience. METHODS: We have analyzed the studies with the results of robot-assisted colposacropexy (RALCS) and others in which this technique is compared with the abdominal (ACS) and/or the laparoscopic approach (LCS), including our own series. The main data collected are surgical time, blood loss, complications, clinical outcomes, quality of life and the different costs of LCS versus RALCS. We have reviewed the last systematic reviews and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes were similar within both RALCS and LCS, surgical time was a bit longer for the robot-assisted compared with laparoscopy, blood loss was similar, as complications. The costs of RALCS were significantly higher than those of LCS, although we must conseconsider that the different studies used different variables to measure them. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that comparative studies are necessary, it is reasonable to assume that RALCS is a feasible and secure technique for the treatment of POP.