Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes

Elizabeth J. Geller, Brent A. Parnell, Gena C. Dunivan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

74 Scopus citations


Objective: To evaluate longer-term clinical outcomes after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort assessment of women undergoing either robotic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy between March 2006 and October 2007. Pelvic floor support was measured using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination, and pelvic floor function was assessed via validated questionnaires, including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Results: The analysis included 51 subjects: 23 robotic and 28 abdominal. Mean time since surgery was 44.2 ± 6.4 months. Postoperative POP-Q improved similarly from baseline in both the robotic and abdominal groups: C (-8 vs -7), Aa (-2.5 vs -2.25), Ap (-2 vs -2) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Pelvic floor function also improved similarly in both groups: PFDI-20 (61.0 vs 54.7), PFIQ-7 (19.1 vs 15.7), with high sexual function PISQ-12 (35.1 vs 33.1) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Two mesh exposures occurred in each group for a rate of 8% and 7%, respectively. Conclusion: Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrates similar long-term outcomes compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The robotic approach offers an effective treatment alternative to abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the lasting treatment of advanced POP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)532-536
Number of pages5
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2012

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this