Abstract:Background: POP (pelvic organ prolapse) involves the descent of one or more pelvic organs downwards with or without protrusion from the vaginal opening, caused by the relaxation and weakening of ligaments, connective tissue, and pelvic muscles. Such an outcome negatively impacts the quality of life. The gold standard procedure for repairing apical compartment prolapse is colposacropexy (CS) to secure the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina to the anterior longitudinal sacral ligament, located anteriorly to the sacral promontory, using a mesh. Several surgical approaches are feasible. Laparotomic or minimally invasive methods, including laparoscopic or robotic ones, can restore the horizontal axis of the vagina and typically involve concomitant hysterectomy. Methods: This study is based on 80 patients who underwent CS at Palermo's Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello from 2019 to 2023. Women aged 35-85 at the time of surgery were divided into two groups: 40 patients underwent mini-laparoscopic surgery, and 40 patients underwent robotic surgery. The following parameters were accounted for: demographic data (initials of name and surname, age), preoperative clinical diagnosis, date of surgery, surgical procedure performed, estimated intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgical intervention, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain assessed at 24 h using the VAS scale, and any complications occurring in the postoperative period. Mini-laparoscopic CS (Minilap) and robotic CS (Rob) were then compared in terms of outcomes. Results: In the Minilap group, 11 patients out of 40 had a preoperative diagnosis of vaginal vault prolapse. The average age in this group was 61.6. Five of these patients had isolated cystocele, while the rest presented vaginal stump prolapse linked to cystocele, rectocele, or both. The remaining 29 patients in the Minilap group had a preoperative diagnosis of uterovaginal prolapse, also associated with cystocele, rectocele, or both, or isolated in nine cases. In the Rob group (average age: 60.1), 13 patients were diagnosed with vaginal prolapse (isolated or associated with cystocele), while the remaining 27 had a diagnosis of uterovaginal prolapse. In the Minilap group, the average procedure duration was 123.3 min, shorter than the Rob group (160.1 min). Conclusions: The data collected throughout this prospective study point to the mini-laparoscopic approach as being preferable over the robotic one in terms of surgical procedure length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, and aesthetic outcome. Hospital stay duration and post operative complication rates were similar for both groups. The innovative and ever-progressing nature of such procedures calls for novel standards prioritizing patient care as well as medicolegal viability.

Long-term costs of minimally-invasive sacral colpopexy compared to native tissue vaginal repair with concomitant hysterectomy

Financial analysis of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair with concomitant hysterectomy

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

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

Minimally Invasive Sacrohysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a Prospective Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

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

Laparoscopic versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in women with pelvic organ prolapse. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Retrospective Cohort Study of Recovery From Sacrocolpopexy Versus Nonmesh Prolapse Repair

Robotic versus Mini-Laparoscopic Colposacropexy to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study and a Medicolegal Perspective

Comparing Postoperative Pain With Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy

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

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

Long term follow-up after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy

Analysis of the Clinical Value of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy to Support the Posterior Compartment in Women with Multicompartment Prolapse Including Rectocele

The effect of reconstructive vaginal surgery on quality of life and sexual functions in postmenopausal women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse in intermediate-term follow-up

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

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review

Voiding function after sacrocolpopexy versus native tissue transvaginal repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse in an ERAS era: A retrospective cohort study

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

Perioperative outcomes after robotic versus vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study