Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

To prospectively compare short-term functional outcomes achieved by laparoscopic or robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. We prospectively collected clinical and operative data over 24 months for female patients who underwent either pure laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) or robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP). Clinical data included age, BMI and assessment of PFDI-20 score. Perioperative data included operative time and complications. Post-operative outcomes included hospital stay, length of catheterisation, pain and functional outcomes as assessed by clinical examination and PFDI-20 score assessment. Overall, 67 women with a median age of 65 were included: 47 in the LSCP arm and 20 in the RALSCP arm. RALSCP was superior in terms of blood loss (median 55mls vs. 280; P = 0.03) and strict operative time (median 125 min vs. 220; P < 0.0001), but this time advantage was nullified when comparing overall operating room time (215 min vs. 220). With a median follow-up of 16 months, the overall anatomic repair rate was 98.5%, and there was an improvement in overall PFDI-20 score before and after surgery (P = 0.001) but with no difference between the two surgical approaches. RALSCP allows for a safe and effective repair of pelvic organ prolapse in female patients. Whilst being equivalent to LSCP in terms of functional outcome, it is superior in terms of blood loss and strict operative time. These results are based on short-term assessment, and further studies of larger populations with longer follow-up and objective assessments of outcome are needed to make any definitive statement.