medrobМедицинская робототехникаMedical Robotics3033-63923033-8115MedINKmedrob-19Research Article• ОРИГИНАЛЬНАЯ РАБОТА, НАБЛЮДЕНИЕ ИЗ ПРАКТИКИ• ORIGINAL WORK, OBSERVATION FROM PRACTICEБезопасность робот-ассистированной сакрокольпопексии при лечении пролапса органов малого таза: систематический обзорhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-8734-1673ПоповАлександр Анатольевич

доктор медицинских наук, профессор, руководитель отделения оперативной гинекологии с онкогинекологией и дневным стационаром ГБУЗ МО «Московский областной научно-исследовательский институт акушерства и гинекологии имени академика В.И. Краснопольского», Москва, Россия

ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8734-1673 e-mail: gyn_endoscopy@mail.ru 

gyn_endoscopy@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7698-0653ГригорянБаграт Львович

старший лаборант кафедры урологии ФГБОУ ВО «Российский 

Университет Медицины» Минздрава России, врач-уролог Московского урологического 

центра ГБУЗ ММНКЦ им. С.П. Боткина ДЗМ, Москва, Россия 

bagratgrigoryan15@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7919-2217КасянГеворг Рудикович

доктор медицинских наук; профессор кафедры урологии ФГБОУ ВО «Российский Университет Медицины» Минздрава России, заведующий урологическим отделением Московского урологического центра ГБУЗ ММНКЦ им. С.П. Боткина ДЗМ, Москва, Россия

g.kasyan@outlook.comhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0657-7172ШаповаленкоРоман Артемович

студент 6-го курса, ФГАОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова» Минздрава России (Сеченовский Университет), Москва, Россия;

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0657-7172

roman.shap99@gmail.comhttps://orcid.org/0009-0008-2961-1688ПушкарьДмитрий Юрьевич

доктор медицинских наук, профессор, академик РАН; 

заведующий кафедрой урологии ФГБОУ ВО «Российский университет медицины» Минздрава России; руководитель Московского урологического центра ГБУЗ ММНКЦ им. С.П. Боткина ДЗМ, Москва, Россия 

pushkardm@mail.ruГБУЗ МО «Московский областной научно-исследовательский институт акушерства и гинекологии имени академика В.И. Краснопольского», Москва, РоссияRussian FederationГБУЗ ММНКЦ имени С.П. Боткина Департамента здравоохранения города Москвы, Московский Урологический Центр, Москва, РоссияRussian FederationГБУЗ ММНКЦ имени С.П. Боткина Департамента здравоохранения города Москвы, Московский Урологический Центр, Москва, РоссияRussian FederationФГАОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова» Минздрава России (Сеченовский Университет), Москва, Россия;Russian Federation2026170620261119Copyright © Попов А.А., Григорян Б.Л., Касян Г.Р., Шаповаленко Р.А., Пушкарь Д.Ю., 20262026Попов А.А., Григорян Б.Л., Касян Г.Р., Шаповаленко Р.А., Пушкарь Д.Ю.Попов А.А., Григорян Б.Л., Касян Г.Р., Шаповаленко Р.А., Пушкарь Д.Ю.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.medrobot-j.com/jour/article/view/19

Введение. Целью данной работы является оценка безопасности робот-ассистированной сакрокольпопексии по сравнению с другими хирургическими доступами выполнения сакрокольпопексии, а также влагалищной хирургией при лечении пролапса органов малого таза. Методы. Поиск исследований проводился среди публикаций, вышедших до января 2026 года. В критерии включения входили рандомизированные и нерандомизированные исследования с участием женщин, страдающих пролапсом органов малого таза. Критериями исключения являлись другие виды вмешательств и статьи, не содержащие сравнительного анализа. Использованы следующие ключевые слова: «robotic», «sacrocolpopexy» и «pelvic organ prolapse». Результаты. В систематический обзор было включено 36 исследований. Робот-ассистированная сакрокольпопексия продемонстрировала сопоставимые результаты по сравнению с лапароскопическим (ЛД), абдоминальным (АД) доступами и влагалищной хирургией в отношении числа периоперационных осложнений. Не наблюдалось различий в объеме кровопотери между робот-ассистированным доступом (РД) и ЛД, а также АД. Однако для влагалищной хирургии объем интраоперационной кровопотери был значительно больше, в отличие от РД.     

Кроме того, частота конверсий при РД была ниже, чем при ЛД. В то же время ЛД и влагалищная хирургия характеризовались меньшей продолжительностью операции по сравнению с робот-ассистированной сакокольпопексией. Длительность госпитализации была меньше при РД, однако при сравнении с влагалищной хирургией не было получено значимых различий.  Заключение.  Робот-ассистированная сакрокольпопексия может обладать преимуществами в виде снижения кровопотери по сравнению с влагалищной хирургией и сокращения длительности госпитализации по сравнению с лапароскопической сакрокольпопексией. Для более точного и объективного подтверждения безопасности и эффективности РД необходимы дальнейшие высококачественные рандомизированные исследования. 

пролапс органов малого тазаробот-ассистированная хирургияробот-ассистированная сакрокольпопексия.ReferencesHaylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al AnHaylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al AnInternational Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International ContinenceInternational Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International ContinenceSociety (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction.Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction.Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4–20.Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4–20.Deprest JA, Cartwright R, Dietz HP, Brito LGO, Koch M, Allen-Brady K, et al.Deprest JA, Cartwright R, Dietz HP, Brito LGO, Koch M, Allen-Brady K, et al.International Urogynecological Consultation (IUC): pathophysiology of pelvicInternational Urogynecological Consultation (IUC): pathophysiology of pelvicorgan prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(7):1699–1710. https://doi.org/organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(7):1699–1710. https://doi.org/1007/s00192-022-05081-0.1007/s00192-022-05081-0.Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence:Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence:systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):13–21.systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):13–21.https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00192-017-3475-4.https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00192-017-3475-4.Brito LGO, Pereira GMV, Moalli P, Shynlova O, Manonai J, Weintraub AY, etBrito LGO, Pereira GMV, Moalli P, Shynlova O, Manonai J, Weintraub AY, etal. Age and/or postmenopausal status as risk factors for pelvic organ prolapseal. Age and/or postmenopausal status as risk factors for pelvic organ prolapsedevelopment: systematic review with meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J.development: systematic review with meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J.;33(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04953-1.;33(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04953-1.Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology ofOlsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology ofsurgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstetsurgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. ObstetGynecol. 1997;89(4):501.Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501.Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1815–33.Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1815–33.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1.Lim PC, Crane JT, English EJ, Farnam RW, Garza DM, Winter ML, RozeboomLim PC, Crane JT, English EJ, Farnam RW, Garza DM, Winter ML, RozeboomJL. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginalJL. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginalhysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int Jhysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int JGynaecol Obstet. 2016;133(3):359–64.Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;133(3):359–64.Mozon AO, Kim JH, Lee SR. Robotic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol Sci.Mozon AO, Kim JH, Lee SR. Robotic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol Sci.;67(2):212–7. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.23226.;67(2):212–7. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.23226.Pushkar DY, Kasyan GR, Popov AA. Robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organPushkar DY, Kasyan GR, Popov AA. Robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organprolapse: a review of current literature. Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(6):531–6.prolapse: a review of current literature. Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(6):531–6.https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000932.https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000932.Noor N, Bastawros D, Florian-Rodriguez ME, Hobson D, Eto C, Lozo S, et al.Noor N, Bastawros D, Florian-Rodriguez ME, Hobson D, Eto C, Lozo S, et al.Comparing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with vaginal uterosacral ligamentComparing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with vaginal uterosacral ligamentsuspension: a multicenter retrospective cohort study through the Fellows' Pelvicsuspension: a multicenter retrospective cohort study through the Fellows' PelvicResearch Network. Urogynecology (Phila). 2022;28(10):687–94. https://doi.org/Research Network. Urogynecology (Phila). 2022;28(10):687–94. https://doi.org/1097/ SPV.0000000000001226.1097/ SPV.0000000000001226.Chill HH, Hadizadeh A, Paya-Ten C, Leffelman A, Chang C, Moss NP,Chill HH, Hadizadeh A, Paya-Ten C, Leffelman A, Chang C, Moss NP,Goldberg RP. Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcareGoldberg RP. Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcareencounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assistedencounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assistedsacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study. BMC Womens Health.sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study. BMC Womens Health.;24(1): 173. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s12905-024-03011-4.;24(1): 173. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s12905-024-03011-4.Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, Luber KM, Lukacz ES, Brown HW, et al.Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, Luber KM, Lukacz ES, Brown HW, et al.A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasiveA randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasivesacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):649–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):649–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2566-8.s00192-014-2566-8.Rustia GM, Baracy MG Jr, Khair E, Hagglund KH, Aslam MF. Pain withRustia GM, Baracy MG Jr, Khair E, Hagglund KH, Aslam MF. Pain withdiffering insufflation pressures during robotic sacrocolpopexy: a randomizeddiffering insufflation pressures during robotic sacrocolpopexy: a randomizedcontrolled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;142(1):151–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;142(1):151–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005231.AOG.0000000000005231.Ferrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparingFerrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparingRestorelle Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assistedRestorelle Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assistedlaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(2):83–laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(2):83–https://doi. org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000655.https://doi. org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000655.Ferrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparingFerrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparingRestorelle® Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assistedRestorelle® Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assistedlaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: 24-month outcomes. Int Urogynecol J.laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: 24-month outcomes. Int Urogynecol J.;32(6):1565–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04657-y.;32(6):1565–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04657-y.Giugale LE, Hansbarger MM, Askew AL, Visco AG, Shepherd JP, BradleyGiugale LE, Hansbarger MM, Askew AL, Visco AG, Shepherd JP, BradleyMS. Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasiveMS. Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasivesacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(8):2195–sacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(8):2195–https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04681-6.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04681-6.Matanes E, Boulus S, Lauterbach R, Amit A, Weiner Z, Lowenstein L.Matanes E, Boulus S, Lauterbach R, Amit A, Weiner Z, Lowenstein L.Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-portRobotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-portsacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol.sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol.;222(4):358.e1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048.;222(4):358.e1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048.Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Robot-Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol.assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol.;187(2):638–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.160.;187(2):638–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.160.Dubinskaya A, Hernandez-Aranda D, Wakefield DB, Shepherd JP. ComparingDubinskaya A, Hernandez-Aranda D, Wakefield DB, Shepherd JP. Comparinglaparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versuslaparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versusconcomitant hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(2):401–7. https://doi.org/10.concomitant hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(2):401–7. https://doi.org/10./s00192-019-04017-5./s00192-019-04017-5.Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, McDonald MA, Shveiky D, Park AJ, Gutman RE,Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, McDonald MA, Shveiky D, Park AJ, Gutman RE,Sokol AI. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacralSokol AI. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(3):158–61. https://doi.colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(3):158–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824b218d.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824b218d.Awad N, Mustafa S, Amit A, Deutsch M, Eldor-Itskovitz J, Lowenstein L.Awad N, Mustafa S, Amit A, Deutsch M, Eldor-Itskovitz J, Lowenstein L.Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy.Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(6):1181–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(6):1181–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012--x.-x.Cucinella G, Calagna G, Romano G, Di Buono G, Gugliotta G, Saitta S, et al.Cucinella G, Calagna G, Romano G, Di Buono G, Gugliotta G, Saitta S, et al.Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case-controlRobotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case-controlstudy. G Chir. 2016;37(3):113–7. https://doi.org/10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.113.study. G Chir. 2016;37(3):113–7. https://doi.org/10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.113.Evangelopoulos N, Nessi A, Achtari C. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy:Evangelopoulos N, Nessi A, Achtari C. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy:efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy. J Robot Surg.efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy. J Robot Surg.;18(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01799-1.;18(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01799-1.Joubert M, Thubert T, Lefranc JP, Vaessen C, Chartier-Kastler É, Deffieux X,Joubert M, Thubert T, Lefranc JP, Vaessen C, Chartier-Kastler É, Deffieux X,Rouprêt M. Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopicRouprêt M. Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopicsacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women. Prog Urol.sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women. Prog Urol.;24(17):1106–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2014.09.045.;24(17):1106–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2014.09.045.Lallemant M, Tresch C, Puyraveau M, Delplanque S, Cosson M, Ramanah R.Lallemant M, Tresch C, Puyraveau M, Delplanque S, Cosson M, Ramanah R.Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyEvaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexywith and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg.with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg.;15(5):785–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01177-1.;15(5):785–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01177-1.Pulliam SJ, Weinstein MM, Wakamatsu MM. Minimally invasive apicalPulliam SJ, Weinstein MM, Wakamatsu MM. Minimally invasive apicalsacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating roomsacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating roomexperiences. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(2):122–6. https://doi.experiences. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(2):122–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824a3995.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824a3995.Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker MO, Chartier-Kastler E,Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker MO, Chartier-Kastler E,Rouprêt M. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtainedRouprêt M. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtainedafter pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World Jafter pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World JUrol. 2012;30(3):393–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0748-2.Urol. 2012;30(3):393–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0748-2.Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assistedTan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assistedand laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes.and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes.Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):44–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):44–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf.SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf.Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K.Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K.Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and roboticComparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and roboticsacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(2):234–8.sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(2):234–8.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.004.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.004.Chan SS, Pang SM, Cheung TH, Cheung RY, Chung TK. LaparoscopicChan SS, Pang SM, Cheung TH, Cheung RY, Chung TK. Laparoscopicsacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without roboticsacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without roboticassistance. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(1):54–60.assistance. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(1):54–60.Shigemi D, Okada A, Yasunaga H. Postoperative adverse events and re-Shigemi D, Okada A, Yasunaga H. Postoperative adverse events and re-treatment among patients who have undergone laparoscopic and robotictreatment among patients who have undergone laparoscopic and roboticsacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet.sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet.;161(1):114–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14497.;161(1):114–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14497.Yin H, Zeng F, Xue M, Tian X. Therapeutic effect of robotassistedYin H, Zeng F, Xue M, Tian X. Therapeutic effect of robotassistedlaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Zhong Nanlaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Zhong NanDa Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020;45(6):709–14.Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020;45(6):709–14.Unger CA, Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Ridgeway B. PerioperativeUnger CA, Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Ridgeway B. Perioperativeadverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstetadverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J ObstetGynecol. 2014;211(5):547.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054.Gynecol. 2014;211(5):547.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054.Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of roboticGeller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of roboticsacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol.sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol.;112(6):1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394.;112(6):1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394.Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy:Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy:-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79(3):532–6. https://doi.org/10.-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79(3):532–6. https://doi.org/10./j.urology.2011.11.025./j.urology.2011.11.025.Li H, Sammon J, Roghmann F, Sood A, Ehlert M, Sun M, et al. Utilization andLi H, Sammon J, Roghmann F, Sood A, Ehlert M, Sun M, et al. Utilization andperioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared toperioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared toabdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse. Can Urol Assoc J.abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse. Can Urol Assoc J.;8(3–4):100–6. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1858.;8(3–4):100–6. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1858.McFerrin C, Pilkington JE, Pilet H, Frilot CF, Gomelsky A. Abdominal versusMcFerrin C, Pilkington JE, Pilet H, Frilot CF, Gomelsky A. Abdominal versusrobotic sacral colpopexy: a detailed analysis of outcomes. Neurourol Urodyn.robotic sacral colpopexy: a detailed analysis of outcomes. Neurourol Urodyn.;40(7):1811–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24752.;40(7):1811–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24752.Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L,Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L,Gutman RE. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: aGutman RE. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: aretrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):33–7.retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):33–7.https://doi.org/ 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036.https://doi.org/ 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036.Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-yearSiddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-yearoutcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol.outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol.;206(5):435.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.035.;206(5):435.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.035.Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Borah BJ, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB.Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Borah BJ, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB.Perioperative complications and cost of vaginal, open abdominal, and roboticPerioperative complications and cost of vaginal, open abdominal, and roboticsurgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.surgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.;23(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000345.;23(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000345.Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB. Symptom reliefAnand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB. Symptom reliefand retreatment after vaginal, open, or robotic surgery for apical vaginal prolapse.and retreatment after vaginal, open, or robotic surgery for apical vaginal prolapse.Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(5):297–309. https://doi.org/10.1097/Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(5):297–309. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000389.SPV.0000000000000389.Jambusaria LH, Murphy M, Lucente VR. One-year functional and anatomicJambusaria LH, Murphy M, Lucente VR. One-year functional and anatomicoutcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexyoutcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexywith mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(2):87–92.with mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(2):87–92.https://doi.org/10. 1097/SPV.0000000000000120.https://doi.org/10. 1097/SPV.0000000000000120.Kusuda M, Kagami K, Takahashi I, Nozaki T, Sakamoto I. Comparison ofKusuda M, Kagami K, Takahashi I, Nozaki T, Sakamoto I. Comparison oftransvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organtransvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organprolapse. BMC Surg. 2022;22(1):268. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01702-prolapse. BMC Surg. 2022;22(1):268. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01702-z.z.Martin LA, Calixte R, Finamore PS. Reoperation after robotic and vaginalMartin LA, Calixte R, Finamore PS. Reoperation after robotic and vaginalmesh reconstructive surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Medmesh reconstructive surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic MedReconstr Surg. 2015;21(6):315–8.Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(6):315–8.https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000194.https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000194.Nguyen JN, Yang ST. Perioperative outcomes after robotic versus vaginalNguyen JN, Yang ST. Perioperative outcomes after robotic versus vaginalsurgery for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):415–21.surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):415–21.https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11701-019-01006-0.https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11701-019-01006-0.Robinson BL, Parnell BA, Sandbulte JT, Geller EJ, Connolly A, MatthewsRobinson BL, Parnell BA, Sandbulte JT, Geller EJ, Connolly A, MatthewsCA. Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort studyCA. Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort studyof perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstrof perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med ReconstrSurg. 2013;19(4):230–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e318299a66c.Surg. 2013;19(4):230–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e318299a66c.Westermann LB, Crisp CC, Mazloomdoost D, Kleeman SD, Pauls RN.Westermann LB, Crisp CC, Mazloomdoost D, Kleeman SD, Pauls RN.Comparative perioperative pain and recovery in women undergoing vaginalComparative perioperative pain and recovery in women undergoing vaginalreconstruction versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.reconstruction versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.;23(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000368.;23(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000368.Shveiky D, Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Kudish BI, Gutman RE. RoboticShveiky D, Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Kudish BI, Gutman RE. Roboticsacrocolpopexy versus vaginal colpopexy with mesh: choosing the right surgerysacrocolpopexy versus vaginal colpopexy with mesh: choosing the right surgeryfor anterior and apical prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.for anterior and apical prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.;16(2):121–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181d690f3.;16(2):121–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181d690f3.Chang CH, Su TH, Lau HH. The changes in bladder function and symptomsChang CH, Su TH, Lau HH. The changes in bladder function and symptomsafter robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvicafter robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvicorgan prolapse. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;63(1):68–72.organ prolapse. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;63(1):68–72.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tjog.2023.05.016.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tjog.2023.05.016.Smith BC, Crisp CC, Kleeman SD, Yook E, Pauls RN. Uterosacral ligamentSmith BC, Crisp CC, Kleeman SD, Yook E, Pauls RN. Uterosacral ligamentsuspension versus robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical pelvic organsuspension versus robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical pelvic organprolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(2):93–8. https://doi.org/10.prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(2):93–8. https://doi.org/10./SPV.0000000000000704./SPV.0000000000000704.Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al.Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al.Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlledRobotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlledtrial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006.https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006.Illiano E, Ditonno P, Giannitsas K, De Rienzo G, Bini V, Costantini E. Robot-Illiano E, Ditonno P, Giannitsas K, De Rienzo G, Bini V, Costantini E. Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for highstage pelvic organ prolapse: aassisted vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for highstage pelvic organ prolapse: aprospective, randomized, singlecenter study. Urology. 2019;134:116–23. https://prospective, randomized, singlecenter study. Urology. 2019;134:116–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.043.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.043.Kenton K, Mueller ER, Tarney C, Bresee C, Anger JT. One-year outcomesKenton K, Mueller ER, Tarney C, Bresee C, Anger JT. One-year outcomesafter minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.;22(5):382–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000300.;22(5):382–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000300.Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. LaparoscopicParaiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopiccompared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomizedcompared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomizedcontrolled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG0b013e318231537c.AOG0b013e318231537c.Martoccia A, Al Salhi Y, Fuschi A, Rera OA, Suraci PP, Scalzo S, et al. Robot-Martoccia A, Al Salhi Y, Fuschi A, Rera OA, Suraci PP, Scalzo S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy versus trans-vaginal multicompartment prolapse repair:assisted sacrocolpopexy versus trans-vaginal multicompartment prolapse repair:impact on lower bowel tract function. Biomedicines. 2023;11(8):2105. https://doi.impact on lower bowel tract function. Biomedicines. 2023;11(8):2105. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines11082105.org/10.3390/biomedicines11082105.Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, Christmann-Schmid C, Mowat A, Chen Z,Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, Christmann-Schmid C, Mowat A, Chen Z,Baessler K. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane DatabaseBaessler K. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev. 2023;7(7):CD012376.Syst Rev. 2023;7(7):CD012376.https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2.https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2.Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. RoboticassistedDi Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Roboticassistedlaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology.laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology.;63(2):373–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.033.;63(2):373–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.033.Chang CL, Chen CH, Chang SJ. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness ofChang CL, Chen CH, Chang SJ. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness ofrobotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatmentrobotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatmentof pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(2):297–308. https://doi.org/of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(2):297–308. https://doi.org/1007/s00192-021-04741-x.1007/s00192-021-04741-x.Joint Writing Group of the International Urogynecological Association and theJoint Writing Group of the International Urogynecological Association and theAmerican Urogynecologic Society. AUGS-IUGA Joint clinical consensusAmerican Urogynecologic Society. AUGS-IUGA Joint clinical consensusstatement on enhanced recovery after urogynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecol J.statement on enhanced recovery after urogynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecol J.;33(11):2921–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05223-4.;33(11):2921–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05223-4.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.