Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant total hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective cohort study

IF 1.5 4区医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research Pub Date : 2025-09-08 DOI:10.1111/jog.70068

Kuniaki Ota, Toshifumi Takahashi, Yoshiaki Ota, Kayo Tsuji, Keitaro Tasaka, Hana Okamoto, Shogo Kawamura, Wataru Saito, Mitsuru Shiota, Koichiro Shimoya

{"title":"Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant total hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective cohort study","authors":"Kuniaki Ota, Toshifumi Takahashi, Yoshiaki Ota, Kayo Tsuji, Keitaro Tasaka, Hana Okamoto, Shogo Kawamura, Wataru Saito, Mitsuru Shiota, Koichiro Shimoya","doi":"10.1111/jog.70068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This study aimed to compare short- and long-term surgical outcomes between robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), performed with concomitant total hysterectomy, in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This retrospective cohort study included 167 women who underwent RSC (<i>n</i> = 113) or LSC (<i>n</i> = 54) with hysterectomy for uterine prolapse at Kawasaki Medical University between March 2020 and December 2024. Perioperative parameters, complications (Clavien–Dindo classification), and POP recurrence were assessed. The POP-Q was used for anatomical evaluation. Long-term outcomes such as recurrence, urinary incontinence, and mesh erosion were monitored over a median follow-up of 30 (RSC) and 52.5 (LSC) months.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The patients in the RSC group were significantly younger and had a higher incidence of diabetes. RSC had longer operative times (median 175 min vs. 152 min; <i>p</i> < 0.01) but comparable blood loss, complication rates, and hospital stay. POP-Q showed greater cervical elevation in the RSC group at one month (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The long-term recurrence rate was low and similar between the groups (RSC, 2.7%; LSC, 3.7%; <i>p</i> = 0.71). Mesh erosion, urinary incontinence, and organ prolapse were rare and did not differ significantly between the groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>RSC with concomitant hysterectomy is a safe and effective alternative to LSC with comparable short- and long-term outcomes. Despite longer operative times, RSC offers anatomical benefits without increasing the risk of postoperative complications or recurrence.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16593,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","volume":"51 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.70068","RegionNum":4,"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

Aim

This study aimed to compare short- and long-term surgical outcomes between robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), performed with concomitant total hysterectomy, in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 167 women who underwent RSC (n = 113) or LSC (n = 54) with hysterectomy for uterine prolapse at Kawasaki Medical University between March 2020 and December 2024. Perioperative parameters, complications (Clavien–Dindo classification), and POP recurrence were assessed. The POP-Q was used for anatomical evaluation. Long-term outcomes such as recurrence, urinary incontinence, and mesh erosion were monitored over a median follow-up of 30 (RSC) and 52.5 (LSC) months.

Results

The patients in the RSC group were significantly younger and had a higher incidence of diabetes. RSC had longer operative times (median 175 min vs. 152 min; p < 0.01) but comparable blood loss, complication rates, and hospital stay. POP-Q showed greater cervical elevation in the RSC group at one month (p < 0.05). The long-term recurrence rate was low and similar between the groups (RSC, 2.7%; LSC, 3.7%; p = 0.71). Mesh erosion, urinary incontinence, and organ prolapse were rare and did not differ significantly between the groups.

Conclusions

RSC with concomitant hysterectomy is a safe and effective alternative to LSC with comparable short- and long-term outcomes. Despite longer operative times, RSC offers anatomical benefits without increasing the risk of postoperative complications or recurrence.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

机器人与腹腔镜骶阴道固定术合并全子宫切除术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的手术效果比较：一项回顾性队列研究

目的：本研究旨在比较机器人骶colpop固定术（RSC）与腹腔镜骶colpop固定术（LSC）联合全子宫切除术治疗有症状的盆腔器官脱垂（POP）患者的短期和长期手术效果。方法：本回顾性队列研究包括167名在2020年3月至2024年12月期间在川崎医科大学接受子宫脱垂RSC （n = 113）或LSC （n = 54）子宫切除术的女性。评估围手术期参数、并发症（Clavien-Dindo分类）和POP复发情况。采用POP-Q进行解剖评价。在中位随访30个月（RSC）和52.5个月（LSC）期间监测复发、尿失禁和补片糜烂等长期预后。结果RSC组患者年轻化明显，糖尿病发病率较高。RSC的手术时间较长（中位175分钟对152分钟；p < 0.01），但出血量、并发症发生率和住院时间相当。1个月时，RSC组的POP-Q显示宫颈升高幅度较大（p < 0.05）。两组间长期复发率低且相似（RSC, 2.7%； LSC, 3.7%; p = 0.71）。补片糜烂、尿失禁和器官脱垂很少见，两组间无显著差异。结论RSC合并子宫切除术是一种安全有效的替代LSC的方法，短期和长期疗效相当。尽管手术时间较长，但RSC在不增加术后并发症或复发风险的情况下提供了解剖学上的好处。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 医学-妇产科学

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

376

审稿时长

3-6 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research is the official Journal of the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and aims to provide a medium for the publication of articles in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal publishes original research articles, case reports, review articles and letters to the editor. The Journal will give publication priority to original research articles over case reports. Accepted papers become the exclusive licence of the Journal. Manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two referees and/or Associate Editors expert in the field of the submitted paper.