Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard procedure for treating pelvic organ prolapse (POP) patients with apical defects. Different surgical approaches have emerged and been utilized successively, including traditional laparoscopy, single-hole laparoscopy, robotic laparoscopy, vaginal-assisted laparoscopy, and transvaginal approaches. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has attracted increasing attention as an emerging surgical technique and has unique advantages, such as a “simulated wrist” mechanical arm and high-definition three-dimensional (3D) visual field, which has gradually begun to be utilized in the clinical setting. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist, and a systematic literature search was conducted on six databases from their inception to 1st March 2020. We evaluated patients with POP who underwent RSC or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), outcomes (including perioperative outcomes: blood loss, operating times, blood transfusion, and hospital stay), surgery-related complications, as well as cure and recurrence rates. RESULTS: A total of 49 articles were available, including 3,014 patients, among which 18 were comparative studies on LSC vs. RSC, and 31 were non-comparative single-arm studies on RSC. For RSC, median operative time was 226 [90–604] minutes, estimated blood loss was 56 [5–1,500] mL, and hospital stay was 1.55 [1–16] days. Intraoperative complications and postoperative complications occurred in 74 (2.7%) and 360 (13.0%) patients, respectively. Of 2,768 RSC patients, 40 had been converted from a robot-assisted approach to other approaches, and 134 of 1,852 patients (7.2%) have recurrent prolapses of any compartment. Compared to LSC, RSC was associated with significantly lower blood loss and lower conversion rate. However, more operative time was observed in RSC. No significant differences were observed in perioperative transfusion, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or objective recurrence between RSC and LSC. CONCLUSIONS: RSC’s application seems to contribute some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to promote equivalent clinical outcomes. Notably, heterogeneity among studies might have affected the outcome of the study. Consequently, high-quality and large-sample randomized trials comparing both techniques are necessitated.