Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with autologous fascia lata: technique and initial outcomes


Introduction and hypothesis

Pelvic reconstructive surgery is increasingly being performed with autologous grafts to avoid complications of synthetic mesh and improve the durability of a native tissue repair. Autologous fascia lata (AFL) provides a reliable source of robust connective tissue to improve surgical outcomes. We present our technique and initial experience with performing robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) augmented with AFL.


A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent RSC with AFL between January 2015 and November 2017. Outcomes evaluated include recurrence of prolapse on physical examination, prolapse symptoms, urinary incontinence, patient satisfaction based on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) and complications.


Twelve patients were identified with a median age of 68 years (range, 46–77 years) at the time of RSC with AFL. Eleven patients had a history of prior sling and/or vaginal mesh. The median operative time was 225 min (177–302 min). There were no intra- or postoperative complications. After a median follow-up of 14.7 months (5.7 to 39 months), the median PGI-I response was 2 (range, 1–3, very much to a little better). No recurrent or persistent apical prolapse was observed. Three patients (25%) reported recurrence of sensation of a vaginal bulge, which were all due to anterior vaginal wall prolapse.


RSC can be performed with AFL and should be considered in patients with a history of mesh complications. Overall patient satisfaction was high. While these short-term outcomes are encouraging, further studies are needed to assess long-term durability of anatomic results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1



abdominal sacrocolpopexy


autologous fascia lata


fascia lata


Patient Global Impression of Improvement


pelvic organ prolapse


robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy


stress urinary incontinence


  1. 1.

    Dunn GE, Hansen BL, Egger MJ, Nygaard I, Sanchez-Birkhead AC, Ana C, et al. Changed women: the long-term impact of vaginal mesh complications. Female Pelvic Med Recons Surg. 2014;20(3):131–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lee D, Zimmern PE. Management of complications of mesh surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(4):284–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cardenas-Trowers OO, Malekzadeh P, Nix DE, Hatch KD. Vaginal mesh removal outcomes: eight years of experience at an academic hospital. Female Pelvic Med Recons Surg. 2017;23(6):382–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rawlings T, Lavelle RS, Burhan C, Alhalabu F, Zimmern PE. Prolapse recurrence after transvaginal mesh removal. J Urol. 2015;194(5):1342–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kobashi KC, Albo ME, Dmochowski RR, Ginsberg DA, Goldman HB, Gomelsky A, et al. Surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2017;198(4):875–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):688.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    McCoy O, Vaughan T, Nickles SW, Ashley M, MacLachlan LS, Ginsberg D, et al. Outcomes of autologous fascia Pubovaginal sling for patients with transvaginal mesh related complications requiring mesh removal. J Urol. 2016;196(2):484–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Shah K, Nikolavsky D. Gilsdorf, Flynn BJ. Surgical management of lower urinary mesh perforation after mid-urethral polypropylene mesh sling: mesh excision, urinary tract reconstruction and concomitant pubovaginal sling with autologous rectus fascia. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(12):2111–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Oliver JL, Chaudhry ZQ, Medendorp AR, Wood LN, Baxter ZC, Kim J, et al. Complete excision of sacrocolpopexy mesh with autologous fascia sacrocolpopexy. Urology. 2017;106:65–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lee U, Raz S. Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: what is cure? Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(1):62–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Moarjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012079.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A. Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2014;66(2): 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Recons Surg. 2014;20(5):252–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dahlgren E, Kjölhede P. Long-term outcome of porcine skin graft in surgical treatment of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. An open randomized controlled multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(12):1393–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Linder BJ, Chow GK, Elliott DS. Long-term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Urol. 2015;22(12):1155–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Jong K, Klein T, Zimmern PE. Long-term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy. J Robot Surg. 2018;12:455–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Anger JA, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman AR, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sung HH, Ko KJ, Suh YS, Ryu GH, Lee K. Surgical outcomes and safety of robotic sacrocolpopexy in women with apical pelvic organ prolapse. Int Neurourol J. 2017;21(1):68–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Villa M, Sportelli C, Pezzota MG. Robotic sacrocolpopexy for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a case series of 31 patients by a single surgeon with a long-term follow-up. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69(1):13–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Lippmann Q, Lukacz ES, Luber KM, Nager CW, et al. A pilot study comparing anatomic failure after sacrocolpopexy with absorbable or permanent sutures for vaginal mesh attachment. Perman J. 2014;18(4):40–4.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Balgobin S, Fitzwater JL, McIntire DD, Delgado IJ, Wai CY. Effect of mesh width on apical support after sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1153–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tate SB, Blackwell L, Lorenz DJ, Steptoe MM, Culligan PJ. Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(2):137–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gregory WT, Otto LN, Gergstrom JO, Clark AL. Surgical outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy with synthetic mesh versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy with cadaveric fascia lata. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16(5):369–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Shippey S, Cundiff GW, Sanses T, Blomquist JL, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):557.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Marcus-Braun N, von Theobald P. Mesh removal following transvaginal mesh placement: a case series of 104 operations. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(4):423–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Tijdink MM, Vierhout ME, Heesakkers, Withagen MIJ. Surgical management of mesh-related complications after prior pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(11):1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JOL. The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1438–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Hsu Y, DeLancey JOL. Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(2):324–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Guiahi M. KentonK, Brubaker L. Sacrocolpopexy without concomitant posterior repair improves posterior compartment defects. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(9):1267–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria C. S. Scott.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest


Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scott, V.C.S., Oliver, J.L., Raz, S. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with autologous fascia lata: technique and initial outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 30, 1965–1971 (2019).

Download citation


  • Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
  • Fascia lata