Long-term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy

Original Article


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 


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.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Gilleran JP, Johnson M, Hundley A (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Ther Adv Urol 2(5–6):195–208. doi: 10.1177/1756287210379120 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL et al (2015) A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 26(5):649–656. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2566-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muffly T, McCormick TC, Dean J, Bonham A, Hill RFC (2009) An evaluation of knot integrity when tied robotically and conventionally. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(5):e18–e20. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.058 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 63(2):373–376. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kramer BA, Whelan CM, Powell TM, Schwartz BF (2009) Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as management for pelvic organ prolapse. J Endourol 23(4):655–658. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0290 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL et al (2009) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 23(10):2390–2394. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-0311-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.2011.08.092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehlert MJ, Gupta P, Park J, Sirls LT (2016) Detailed cost analysis of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared to transvaginal mesh repair. Urology. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.05.072 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linder BJ, Chow GK, Elliott DS (2015) Long-term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Urol 22(12):1155–1158. doi: 10.1111/iju.12900 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shimko MS, Umbreit EC, Chow GK, Elliott DS (2011) Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a minimum of three years follow-up. J Robot Surg 5(3):175–180. doi: 10.1007/s11701-011-0244-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK (2006) Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 176(2):655–659. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brubaker L, Cundiff G, Fine P et al (2003) A randomized trial of colpopexy and urinary reduction efforts (CARE): design and methods. Control Clin Trials 24(5):629–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feiner B, Jelovsek JE, Maher C (2009) Efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh kits in the treatment of prolapse of the vaginal apex: a systematic review. BJOG 116(1):15–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02023.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Belsante M, Murray S, Dillon B, Zimmern P (2013) Mid term outcome of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Can J Urol 20(1):6656–6661PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilleran JP, Lemack GE, Zimmern PE (2006) Reduction of moderate-to-large cystocele during urodynamic evaluation using a vaginal gauze pack: 8-year experience. BJU Int 97(2):292–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05905.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Almassi N, Goldman HB (2016) Intraoperative ultrasound-guided removal of retained mini sling anchor causing vaginal pain. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 22(1):e17–e19. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000236 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 369(9566):1027–1038. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60462-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barboglio PG, Toler AJW, Triaca V (2014) Robotic sacrocolpopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20(1):38–43. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Linder BJ, Anand M, Klingele CJ, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB, Occhino JA (2017) Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy using only absorbable suture for mesh fixation. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 23(1):13–16. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000326 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM et al (2013) Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA 309(19):2016–2024. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hach CE, Krude J, Reitz A, Reiter M, Haferkamp A, Buse S (2015) Midterm results of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 26(9):1321–1326. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2688-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ou R, Xie X-J, Zimmern PE (2011) Prolapse follow-up at 5 years or more: myth or reality? Urology 78(2):295–299. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.02.069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR (2014) Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20(5):252–260. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000070 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UT Southwestern Medical CenterDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations