Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVE The aim of our study was to compare the morbidity and long-term efficacy after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance. METHODS We conducted a retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexies for POP-Q stage 2-4 vaginal prolapse performed between September 2015 and October 2018 in 2 Gynecologic Surgery Departments of France. Patients were separated into two groups: a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy group (LS) and a robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy group (RAS). The primary outcome measure was reoperation procedures for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP). RESULTS Two hundred and fourteen patients were included, 160 patients (75%) in the LS group and 54 patients (25%) in the RAS group. After a mean follow-up of 32.8 months, reoperation rate for recurrent POP and the recurrent POP rate were greater in the RAS group (9.2% versus 1.2%, p = 0.01 and 25.9% versus 7.5%, p = 0.0003, respectively). No significant difference was found in terms of immediate intraoperative (3.1% versus 1.8%, p = 1) and postoperative complications (1.9% versus 1.8%, p = 1). On comparing the 2 groups by bivariate analysis, RAS significantly increased the odds of reoperation for POP recurrence (OR = 7.8 CI 95% [1.5-41.6], p = 0.02) and the odds of global reoperation (OR = 3.8 CI 95% [1.4-10.4], p = 0.0095). Similarly, multivariate logistic analysis showed that RAS increased the risks of global reoperation (OR = 3.8 CI 95% [1.3-10.6], p = 0.01) after controlling high-grade prolapse. CONCLUSION Robotic sacrocolpopexy does not appear to give long-term clinical benefits. Recurrent POP and reoperation procedures seem to be more frequent in case of robotic-assisted surgery.