Bagrat Grigoryan, George Kasyan, Roman Shapovalenko, Alexander Popov, Dmitry Pushkar
{"title":"The Safety of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Bagrat Grigoryan, George Kasyan, Roman Shapovalenko, Alexander Popov, Dmitry Pushkar","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06158-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSP) compared with other approaches of sacrocolpopexy and vaginal surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search was performed on studies published prior to May 2024. The inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized trials involving adult women with POP. Exclusion criteria comprised other forms of intervention treatments and articles lacking comparative analyses. This study adhered to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome framework, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 checklist, and was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic review included 36 studies, whereas the meta-analysis included 30 studies. RSP demonstrated superior outcomes compared with laparoscopic (LSP), abdominal (ASP), and vaginal surgery (VS) approaches, with fewer perioperative complications (p < 0.00001 for RSP vs ASP; p = 0.01 for RSP vs VS), reduced blood loss (total p < 0.00001 for RSP vs LSP, ASP, and VS), and shorter hospital stays (p = 0.003 for RSP vs LSP; p = 0.27 for RSP vs VS). Additionally, RSP had fewer surgical conversions than LSP (p = 0.01). However, LSP and VS showed significantly shorter operation times than RSP (p < 0.00001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy may offer advantages in reducing blood loss compared with VS and shortening hospital stays compared with LSP. Sensitivity analyses, however, revealed no significant differences in perioperative complications or blood loss compared with LSP and ASP. Further high-quality randomized studies are necessary to confirm the safety and efficacy of RSP.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06158-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis: The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSP) compared with other approaches of sacrocolpopexy and vaginal surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
Methods: The search was performed on studies published prior to May 2024. The inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized trials involving adult women with POP. Exclusion criteria comprised other forms of intervention treatments and articles lacking comparative analyses. This study adhered to the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome framework, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 checklist, and was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.
Results: The systematic review included 36 studies, whereas the meta-analysis included 30 studies. RSP demonstrated superior outcomes compared with laparoscopic (LSP), abdominal (ASP), and vaginal surgery (VS) approaches, with fewer perioperative complications (p < 0.00001 for RSP vs ASP; p = 0.01 for RSP vs VS), reduced blood loss (total p < 0.00001 for RSP vs LSP, ASP, and VS), and shorter hospital stays (p = 0.003 for RSP vs LSP; p = 0.27 for RSP vs VS). Additionally, RSP had fewer surgical conversions than LSP (p = 0.01). However, LSP and VS showed significantly shorter operation times than RSP (p < 0.00001).
Conclusions: Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy may offer advantages in reducing blood loss compared with VS and shortening hospital stays compared with LSP. Sensitivity analyses, however, revealed no significant differences in perioperative complications or blood loss compared with LSP and ASP. Further high-quality randomized studies are necessary to confirm the safety and efficacy of RSP.
期刊介绍：
The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
