The aim of the study is to evaluate anatomic and functional late-term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy (RMS) at a single tertiary-care institution. Following IRB approval, a retrospective chart review of a prospectively collected database on consecutive patients who underwent RMS for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and had 3 year minimum follow-up was performed. Data collected included physical examination, validated questionnaires including Urogenital Distress Inventory, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, and global Quality of Life (QOL). The primary outcome was failure defined as the need for re-operation and/or prolapse recurrence by examination. Those with office follow-up < 36 months underwent structured phone interviews. Between 12/2007 and 2/2012, 56 women underwent RMS. Thirty women had follow-up ≥ 3 years (median 64 (IQR 48–85) months). Mean C-point went from − 2.33 (range 0 to − 5) to − 9.00 (0 to − 12) (p < 0.01), and mean QOL score from 3.93 (0–10) to 1.93 (0–8) (p < 0.01). Two developed recurrent vault prolapse later on at 26 and 34 months, respectively. Four women (13%) required surgery for secondary prolapses, with three for anterior compartment and one for posterior compartment. Sixteen of twenty six were contacted via structured phone interviews, with 14 doing well, one deceased, and one who underwent a secondary posterior compartment prolapse 6 years later at an outside facility. This long-term study indicates durability for RMS in the management of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.
Mesh sacrocolpopexy Pelvic prolapse Robotic surgery Long-term results
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Karen Jong, MS; Ted Klein, M.D.; and Philippe E. Zimmern, M.D. declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Chen B, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Sokol ER (2011) Can robotic surgery be cost effective? A cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(6):S25. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2011.08.092CrossRefGoogle Scholar