Abstract:BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard procedure for treating pelvic organ prolapse (POP) patients with apical defects. Different surgical approaches have emerged and been utilized successively, including traditional laparoscopy, single-hole laparoscopy, robotic laparoscopy, vaginal-assisted laparoscopy, and transvaginal approaches. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has attracted increasing attention as an emerging surgical technique and has unique advantages, such as a "simulated wrist" mechanical arm and high-definition three-dimensional (3D) visual field, which has gradually begun to be utilized in the clinical setting.METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist, and a systematic literature search was conducted on six databases from their inception to 1st March 2020. We evaluated patients with POP who underwent RSC or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), outcomes (including perioperative outcomes: blood loss, operating times, blood transfusion, and hospital stay), surgery-related complications, as well as cure and recurrence rates.RESULTS: A total of 49 articles were available, including 3,014 patients, among which 18 were comparative studies on LSC <i>vs.</i> RSC, and 31 were non-comparative single-arm studies on RSC. For RSC, median operative time was 226 [90-604] minutes, estimated blood loss was 56 [5-1,500] mL, and hospital stay was 1.55 [1-16] days. Intraoperative complications and postoperative complications occurred in 74 (2.7%) and 360 (13.0%) patients, respectively. Of 2,768 RSC patients, 40 had been converted from a robot-assisted approach to other approaches, and 134 of 1,852 patients (7.2%) have recurrent prolapses of any compartment. Compared to LSC, RSC was associated with significantly lower blood loss and lower conversion rate. However, more operative time was observed in RSC. No significant differences were observed in perioperative transfusion, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or objective recurrence between RSC and LSC.CONCLUSIONS: RSC's application seems to contribute some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to promote equivalent clinical outcomes. Notably, heterogeneity among studies might have affected the outcome of the study. Consequently, high-quality and large-sample randomized trials comparing both techniques are necessitated.

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Vs Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: 1 Year Results of a Multicenter Randomized Study

Age-stratified Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

1473 Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Sis Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Versus Transvaginal Mesh Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Long-term treatment outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery versus anterior-posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Long‐term Treatment Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Anterior–posterior Colporrhaphy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Laparoscopic Extraperitoneal Uterine Suspension to Anterior Abdominal Wall Bilaterally Using Synthetic Mesh to Treat Uterovaginal Prolapse

Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Mesh Exposure and Prolapse Recurrence Following Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery for Sacrocolpopexy: Over 24 months of Follow-Up Data

Comparative efficacy of bilateral mesh sacrospinous ligament suspension versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in patients with metroptosis

Transvaginal Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

Clinical Observation of a Modified Surgical Method: Posterior Vaginal Mesh Suspension of Female Rectocele with Intractable Constipation.

Transvaginal Mesh Versus Native Tissue Repair for Anterior and Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Transperineal Pelvic Floor Ultrasound for Analyzing the Outcomes of Pelvic Floor Surgery for the Treatment of Anterior Compartment Prolapse: A Comparative Study of Transvaginal Mesh and Native-Tissue Repair

Porcine dermis compared with polypropylene mesh for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial

Comparison of Different Laparoscopic Sacropexy Procedures for Advanced Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis

Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Midterm Comparison of Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension and Sacrocolpopexy in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Apical Prolapse

Medium-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy or Sacrohysteropexy Versus Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixationfor Middle Compartment Prolapse