Journal of South Asian Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy (Laparoscopic and Robotic): Its Outcomes and Complications—Our Experience

Lynsel H Texeira, Divyashree Bhat, Mariam Anjum Ifthikar, Priyanka Kumari, Nischith Dsouza, Amit Kumar, V Jeevan Kumar, M Mujeeburahiman, Altaf Khan

Keywords : Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, Pelvic organ prolapse, Robotic sacrocolpopexy

Citation Information : Texeira LH, Bhat D, Ifthikar MA, Kumari P, Dsouza N, Kumar A, Kumar VJ, Mujeeburahiman M, Khan A. Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy (Laparoscopic and Robotic): Its Outcomes and Complications—Our Experience. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2022; 14 (3):261-264.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2059

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-07-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Introduction: The gold standard treatment for managing patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is sacrocolpopexy. Initially, open sacrocolpopexy was adopted; however, over the years classic laparoscopic approach and its modifications in the form of single port laparoscopy, NOTES (vaginal-assisted laparoscopy) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) have emerged. Usage of minimally invasive approaches has gained momentum in the recent past as they reduce the morbidity associated with open sacrocolpopexy, allowing faster recovery of the patient. Classic LSC has similar outcomes to abdominal sacrocolpopexy but is technically challenging especially due to the pelvic organ surgery offering limited area available for operating. Overcoming these limitations, by the characteristic features of the robotic system such as a “simulated wrist” of the mechanical arm with its enhanced freedom of movement along with a three-dimensional field of view, has attracted significant interest in recent years for robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC). Aims: To evaluate outcomes and complications following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy in patients with POP. Materials and methods: We evaluated a total of 20 patients with POP, 15 of those underwent LSC and five patients underwent RSC. We assessed outcomes in both these groups in terms of operating times, blood loss, blood transfusion, surgery-related complications, total hospital stay, and recurrence rates at 1-year follow-up. Results: Patients having RSC had a significantly lower rate of blood loss of ≤300 mL. Maximum postoperative complications were recorded as Clavien-Dindo grade I (seen in 75% of the patients). Most common among these were dysuria and urinary infection (seen in 40%). No Clavien-Dindo grade IVa, IVb, and V complications were recorded in either laparoscopic or robotic techniques conducted at our hospital. At 1 year of follow-up, no significant recurrence was seen in RSC (0%), while a low recurrence rate was seen in LSC (two patients, 13%). Conclusion: Robotic technology provides some advantages as compared to classic laparoscopic surgery. However, both approaches appear to provide equivalent clinical outcomes. But the cost of utilizing and maintaining the robotic system appears to be significant. Hence LSC is the suitable method of treating POP, especially in a country like India. However large randomized trials comparing both techniques are warranted.

PDF Share
  1. Yang J, He Y, Zhang X, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med 2021;9(6):449. DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-4347.
  2. Peng P, Zhu L, Lang JH, et al. Unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation for treatment of genital prolapse. Chin Med J (Engl) 2010;123(15): 1995–1998. PMID: 20819531.
  3. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184(7):1496–1501; discussion 1501–1503. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2001.114868.
  4. Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, et al. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 2012;61(2):341–349. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.033.
  5. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol 2009;55(5): 1089–1103. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.048.
  6. Aromataris E, Munn Z. editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI; 2020. Available online:
  7. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, et al. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003;73(9):712–716. DOI: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x.
  8. Ferrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparing restorelle y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2019;25(2):83–87. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000655.
  9. Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20(1):43–48. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2012.08.774.
  10. Elliott DS, Siddiqui SA, Chow GK. Assessment of the durability of robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. J Robot Surg 2007;1(2):163–168. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-007-0028-8.
  11. Mueller ER, Kenton K, Anger JT, et al. Cosmetic appearance of port-site scars 1 year after laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy: a supplementary study of the ACCESS clinical trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23(6):917–921. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.001.
  12. Elliott DS, Chow GK, Gettman M. Current status of robotics in female urology and gynecology. World J Urol 2006;24(2):188–192. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-006-0071-5.
  13. Shariati A, Maceda JS, Hale DS. Da Vinci assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. J Pelvic Med Surg 2008;14:163–171. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181772d25.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.