Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Female urology

Growing evidence for robotic prolapse surgery

Subjects

Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) offers the advantages of minimally invasive surgery, especially to surgeons who do not have laparoscopic expertise. A recently published series adds to the growing body of evidence that RSC achieves comparable outcomes to the open approach with minimal morbidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Nygaard, I. et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet. Gynecol. 104, 805–823 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Di Marco, D. S., Chow, G. K., Gettman, M. T. & Elliott, D. S. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 63, 373–376 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jonsson Funk, M. et al. Trends in use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 208, 79e1–79e7 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ploumidis, A. et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and outcomes at a single high-volume institution. Eur. Urol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.054.

  5. Barber, M. D. et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 114, 600–609 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Paraiso, M. F., Jelovsek, J. E., Frick, A., Chen, C. C. & Barber, M. D. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet. Gynecol. 118, 1005–1013 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Awad, N. et al. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 287, 1181–1186 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hoyte, L., Rabbanifard, R., Mezzich, J., Bassaly, R. & Downes, K. Cost analysis of open versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 18, 335–339 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Osmundsen, B. C. et al. Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 18, 86–88 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shepherd, J. P., Higdon, H. L. 3rd, Stanford, E. J. & Mattox, T. F. Effect of suture selection on the rate of suture or mesh erosion and surgery failure in abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 16, 229–233 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamran P. Sajadi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sajadi, K., Goldman, H. Growing evidence for robotic prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol 10, 560–562 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2013.193

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2013.193

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing