medrobМедицинская робототехникаMedical Robotics3033-63923033-8115MedINK10.63769/3033-6392-2026-1-1-8-15medrob-37Research Article• ОБЗОРЫ ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ• LITERATURE REVIEWSБезопасность робот-ассистированной сакрокольпопексии при пролапсе органов малого таза: систематический обзорSafety of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: systematic reviewhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7919-2217КасянГ. Р.KasianG. R.

125284 Москва, 2-й Боткинский проезд, 5 

5 2nd Botkinsky Dr., Moscow 125284 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8734-1673ПоповА. А.PopovA. A.

Александр Анатольевич Попов

101000 Москва, ул. Покровка, 22а 

 Aleksandr Anatolievich Popov 

22a Pokrovka St., Moscow 101000 

gyn_endoscopy@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7698-0653ГригорянБ. Л.GrigorianB. L.

125284 Москва, 2-й Боткинский проезд, 5 

5 2nd Botkinsky Dr., Moscow 125284 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0657-7172ШаповаленкоР. А.ShapovalenkoR. A.

119048 Москва, ул. Трубецкая, 8, стр. 2 

Bld. 2, 8 Trubetskaya St., Moscow 119048 

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2961-1688ПушкарьД. Ю.PushkarD. Yu.

125284 Москва, 2-й Боткинский проезд, 5 

5 2nd Botkinsky Dr., Moscow 125284 

ГБУЗ «Московский многопрофильный научно-клинический центр им. С.П. Боткина Департамента здравоохранения г. Москвы»РоссияS.P. Botkin Moscow Multidisciplinary Scientific and Clinical Center, Moscow Healthcare DepartmentRussian FederationГБУЗ МО «Московский областной научно-исследовательский институт акушерства и гинекологии им. акад. В.И. Краснопольского»РоссияV.I. Krasnopolsky Moscow Regional Research Institute of Obstetrics and GynecologyRussian FederationФГАОУ ВО «Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова» Минздрава РоссииРоссияI.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of RussiaRussian Federation20261904202611815Copyright © Касян Г.Р., Попов А.А., Григорян Б.Л., Шаповаленко Р.А., Пушкарь Д.Ю., 20262026Касян Г.Р., Попов А.А., Григорян Б.Л., Шаповаленко Р.А., Пушкарь Д.Ю.Kasian G.R., Popov A.A., Grigorian B.L., Shapovalenko R.A., Pushkar D.Y.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/37

Цель работы – оценка безопасности робот-ассистированного доступа по сравнению с лапароскопическим, абдоминальным и влагалищным доступом при выполнении сакрокольпопексии по поводу пролапса органов малого таза.

Материалы и методы

Материалы и методы. В материал для анализа включали рандомизированные и нерандомизированные исследования с участием женщин, страдающих пролапсом органов малого таза. В PubMed, Medline и Cochrane Library проведен поиск исследований, результаты которых опубликованы до января 2026 г. Использованы следующие ключевые слова: robotic, sacrocolpopexy и pelvic organ prolapse. Статьи, посвященные исследованию других видов вмешательств, и статьи, не содержащие сравнительного анализа, не были включены в настоящий обзор.

Результаты

Результаты. Для систематического обзора было отобрано 36 исследований. Частота периоперационных осложнений при робот-ассистированной сакрокольпопексии была сопоставима с таковой при операции без использования роботической техники. Объем интраоперационной кровопотери не различался при робот-ассистированной операции и стандартном вмешательстве с применением лапароскопического или абдоминального доступа, но при влагалищном доступе объем кровопотери был значительно больше. Кроме того, частота конверсий при роботассистированном доступе была ниже, чем при лапароскопическом. В то же время лапароскопический и влагалищный доступы характеризовались меньшей продолжительностью операции по сравнению с таковой при робот-ассистированной сакрокольпопексии. Длительность госпитализации была меньше при робот-ассистированном доступе, однако при сравнении с влагалищными операциями не было обнаружено значимых различий.

Заключение

Заключение. Робот-ассистированная сакрокольпопексия может обладать преимуществами: уменьшается объем кровопотери по сравнению с таковым при использовании влагалищного доступа, а также сокращается длительность госпитализации по сравнению с таковой при лапароскопической сакрокольпопексии. Но для более точного и объективного подтверждения безопасности робот-ассистированной сакрокольпопексии необходимы дальнейшие высококачественные проспективные рандомизированные исследования.

Aim

Aim. To evaluate safety of robot-assisted access compared to laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal accesses during sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Materials and methods

Materials and methods. Randomized and non-randomized trials involving women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse were included in the analysis. A search for studies published prior to January of 2026 was performed in the PubMed, Medline and Cochrane Library databases. The following key words were used: robotic, sacrocolpopexy, and pelvic organ prolapse. Articles describing other types of interventions and articles without comparative analysis were not included in this review.

Results

Results. In total, 36 studies were selected for the systematic review. The rate of postoperative complications in robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy was comparable to the rates in surgeries without the use of robotic devices. The volume of intraoperative blood loss did not differ from the volume during standard intervention through laparoscopic or abdominal access, but in vaginal access blood loss volume was significantly higher. Additionally, conversion rate for robot-assisted access was lower than for laparoscopic access. However, laparoscopic and vaginal accesses were characterized by shorter operative time compared to robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy. In-hospital time was shorter for robot-assisted access but compared to vaginal surgeries, no significant differences were observed.

Conclusion

Conclusion. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy might be associated with the following benefits: lower blood loss compared to vaginal access and shorter hospitalization time compared to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, more accurate and objective confirmation of safety of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy requires further high-quality prospective randomized trials.

пролапс органов малого тазаробот-ассистированная сакрокольпопексияпериоперационные осложненияpelvic organ prolapserobot-assisted sacrocolpopexyperioperative complicationsReferencesHaylen B.T., de Ridder D., Freeman R.M. et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29(1):4–20. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20798Haylen B.T., de Ridder D., Freeman R.M. et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29(1):4–20. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20798Deprest J.A., Cartwright R., Dietz H.P. et al. International Urogynecological Consultation (IUC): pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(7):1699–710. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­022­05081­0Deprest J.A., Cartwright R., Dietz H.P. et al. International Urogynecological Consultation (IUC): pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(7):1699–710. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­022­05081­0Friedman T., Eslick G.D., Dietz H.P. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence: systematic review and meta­analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2018;29(1):13–21. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­017­3475­4Friedman T., Eslick G.D., Dietz H.P. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence: systematic review and meta­analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2018;29(1):13–21. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­017­3475­4Brito L.G.O., Pereira G.M.V., Moalli P. et al. Age and/or postmenopausal status as risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse development: systematic review with meta­analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(1):15–29. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­021­04953­1Brito L.G.O., Pereira G.M.V., Moalli P. et al. Age and/or postmenopausal status as risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse development: systematic review with meta­analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(1):15–29. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­021­04953­1Olsen A.L., Smith V.J., Bergstrom J.O. et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89(4):501–6. DOI: 10.1016/S0029­7844(97)00058­6Olsen A.L., Smith V.J., Bergstrom J.O. et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89(4):501–6. DOI: 10.1016/S0029­7844(97)00058­6Barber M.D., Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24(11):1815–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­013­2172­1Barber M.D., Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24(11):1815–33. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­013­2172­1Lim P.C., Crane J.T., English E.J. et al. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high­volume surgeons for benign indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;133(3):359–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.11.010Lim P.C., Crane J.T., English E.J. et al. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomies performed by high­volume surgeons for benign indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;133(3):359–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.11.010Mozon A.O., Kim J.H., Lee S.R. Robotic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2024;67(2):212–7. DOI: 10.5468/ogs.23226Mozon A.O., Kim J.H., Lee S.R. Robotic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2024;67(2):212–7. DOI: 10.5468/ogs.23226Pushkar D.Y., Kasyan G.R., Popov A.A. Robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a review of current literature. Curr Opin Urol 2021;31(6):531–6. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000932Pushkar D.Y., Kasyan G.R., Popov A.A. Robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a review of current literature. Curr Opin Urol 2021;31(6):531–6. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000932Noor N., Bastawros D., Florian­Rodriguez M.E. et al. Comparing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: a multicenter retrospective cohort study through the Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network. Urogynecology (Phila) 2022;28(10):687–94. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001226Noor N., Bastawros D., Florian­Rodriguez M.E. et al. Comparing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: a multicenter retrospective cohort study through the Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network. Urogynecology (Phila) 2022;28(10):687–94. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001226Chill H.H., Hadizadeh A., Paya­Ten C. et al. Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini­laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic­assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study. BMC Womens Health 2024;24(1):173. DOI: 10.1186/s12905­024­03011­4Chill H.H., Hadizadeh A., Paya­Ten C. et al. Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini­laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic­assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study. BMC Womens Health 2024;24(1):173. DOI: 10.1186/s12905­024­03011­4Tan­Kim J., Nager C.W., Grimes C.L. et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26(5):649–56. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­014­2566­8Tan­Kim J., Nager C.W., Grimes C.L. et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26(5):649–56. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­014­2566­8Rustia G.M., Baracy M.G. Jr, Khair E. et al. Pain with differing insufflation pressures during robotic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2023;142(1):151–9. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005231Rustia G.M., Baracy M.G. Jr, Khair E. et al. Pain with differing insufflation pressures during robotic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2023;142(1):151–9. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005231Ferrando C.A., Paraiso M.F.R. A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic­assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2019;25(2):83–7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000655Ferrando C.A., Paraiso M.F.R. A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic­assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2019;25(2):83–7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000655Ferrando C.A., Paraiso M.F.R. A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle® Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic­assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: 24­month outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 2021;32(6):1565–70. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­020­04657­yFerrando C.A., Paraiso M.F.R. A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle® Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic­assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: 24­month outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 2021;32(6):1565–70. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­020­04657­yGiugale L.E., Hansbarger M.M., Askew A.L. et al. Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter? Int Urogynecol J 2021;32(8):2195–201. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­021­04681­6Giugale L.E., Hansbarger M.M., Askew A.L. et al. Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter? Int Urogynecol J 2021;32(8):2195–201. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­021­04681­6Matanes E., Boulus S., Lauterbach R. et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single­site compared with robotic multi­port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;222(4):358.e1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048Matanes E., Boulus S., Lauterbach R. et al. Robotic laparoendoscopic single­site compared with robotic multi­port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;222(4):358.e1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048Elliott C.S., Hsieh M.H., Sokol E.R. et al. Robot­assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost­minimization analysis. J Urol 2012;187(2):638–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.160Elliott C.S., Hsieh M.H., Sokol E.R. et al. Robot­assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost­minimization analysis. J Urol 2012;187(2):638–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.160Dubinskaya A., Hernandez­Aranda D., Wakefield D.B., Shepherd J.P. Comparing laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 2020;31(2):401–7. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­019­04017­5Dubinskaya A., Hernandez­Aranda D., Wakefield D.B., Shepherd J.P. Comparing laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 2020;31(2):401–7. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­019­04017­5Antosh D.D., Grotzke S.A., McDonald M.A. et al. Short­term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2012;18(3):158–61. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824b218dAntosh D.D., Grotzke S.A., McDonald M.A. et al. Short­term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2012;18(3):158–61. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824b218dAwad N., Mustafa S., Amit A. et al. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;287(6):1181–6. DOI: 10.1007/s00404­012­2691­xAwad N., Mustafa S., Amit A. et al. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013;287(6):1181–6. DOI: 10.1007/s00404­012­2691­xCucinella G., Calagna G., Romano G. et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case­control study. G Chir 2016;37(3):113–7. DOI: 10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.113Cucinella G., Calagna G., Romano G. et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case­control study. G Chir 2016;37(3):113–7. DOI: 10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.113Evangelopoulos N., Nessi A., Achtari C. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 2024;18(1):72. DOI: 10.1007/s11701­023­01799­1Evangelopoulos N., Nessi A., Achtari C. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy. J Robot Surg 2024;18(1):72. DOI: 10.1007/s11701­023­01799­1Joubert M., Thubert T., Lefranc J.­P. et al. Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot­assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women. Prog Urol 2014;24(17):1106–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2014.09.045Joubert M., Thubert T., Lefranc J.­P. et al. Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot­assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women. Prog Urol 2014;24(17):1106–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2014.09.045Lallemant M., Tresch C., Puyraveau M. et al. Evaluating the morbidity and long­term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg 2021;15(5):785–92. DOI: 10.1007/s11701­020­01177­1Lallemant M., Tresch C., Puyraveau M. et al. Evaluating the morbidity and long­term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg 2021;15(5):785–92. DOI: 10.1007/s11701­020­01177­1Pulliam S.J., Weinstein M.M., Wakamatsu M.M. Minimally invasive apical sacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating room experiences. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2012;18(2):122–6. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824a3995Pulliam S.J., Weinstein M.M., Wakamatsu M.M. Minimally invasive apical sacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating room experiences. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2012;18(2):122–6. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824a3995Seror J., Yates D.R., Seringe E. et al. Prospective comparison of short­term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot­assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol 2012;30(3):393–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00345­011­0748­2Seror J., Yates D.R., Seringe E. et al. Prospective comparison of short­term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot­assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol 2012;30(3):393–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00345­011­0748­2Tan­Kim J., Menefee S.A., Luber K.M. et al. Robotic­assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2011;17(1):44–9. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cfTan­Kim J., Menefee S.A., Luber K.M. et al. Robotic­assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2011;17(1):44–9. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cfTarr M.E., Brancato S.J., Cunkelman J.A. et al. Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22(2):234–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.004Tarr M.E., Brancato S.J., Cunkelman J.A. et al. Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22(2):234–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.004Chan S.S., Pang S.M., Cheung T.H. et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance. Hong Kong Med J 2011;17(1):54–60.Chan S.S., Pang S.M., Cheung T.H. et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance. Hong Kong Med J 2011;17(1):54–60.Shigemi D., Okada A., Yasunaga H. Postoperative adverse events and re­treatment among patients who have undergone laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023;161(1):114–9. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14497Shigemi D., Okada A., Yasunaga H. Postoperative adverse events and re­treatment among patients who have undergone laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023;161(1):114–9. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14497Yin H., Zeng F., Xue M., Tian X. Therapeutic effect of robot­assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2020;45(6):709–14. DOI: 10.11817/j.issn.1672­7347.2020.190517Yin H., Zeng F., Xue M., Tian X. Therapeutic effect of robot­assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2020;45(6):709–14. DOI: 10.11817/j.issn.1672­7347.2020.190517Unger C.A., Paraiso M.F., Jelovsek J.E. et al. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(5):547.e1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054Unger C.A., Paraiso M.F., Jelovsek J.E. et al. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(5):547.e1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054Geller E.J., Siddiqui N.Y., Wu J.M., Visco A.G. Short­term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112(6):1201–6. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394Geller E.J., Siddiqui N.Y., Wu J.M., Visco A.G. Short­term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112(6):1201–6. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394Geller E.J., Parnell B.A., Dunivan G.C. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44­month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology 2012;79(3):532–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.025Geller E.J., Parnell B.A., Dunivan G.C. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44­month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology 2012;79(3):532–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.025Li H., Sammon J., Roghmann F. et al. Utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8(3–4):100–6. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.1858Li H., Sammon J., Roghmann F. et al. Utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8(3–4):100–6. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.1858McFerrin C., Pilkington J.E., Pilet H. et al. Abdominal versus robotic sacral colpopexy: a detailed analysis of outcomes. Neurourol Urodyn 2021;40(7):1811–9. DOI: 10.1002/nau.24752McFerrin C., Pilkington J.E., Pilet H. et al. Abdominal versus robotic sacral colpopexy: a detailed analysis of outcomes. Neurourol Urodyn 2021;40(7):1811–9. DOI: 10.1002/nau.24752Nosti P.A., Umoh Andy U., Kane S. et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2014;20(1):33–7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036Nosti P.A., Umoh Andy U., Kane S. et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2014;20(1):33–7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036Siddiqui N.Y., Geller E.J., Visco A.G. Symptomatic and anatomic 1­year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206(5):435.e1–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.035Siddiqui N.Y., Geller E.J., Visco A.G. Symptomatic and anatomic 1­year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206(5):435.e1–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.035Anand M., Weaver A.L., Fruth K.M. et al. Perioperative complications and cost of vaginal, open abdominal, and robotic surgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2017;23(1):27–35. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000345Anand M., Weaver A.L., Fruth K.M. et al. Perioperative complications and cost of vaginal, open abdominal, and robotic surgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2017;23(1):27–35. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000345Anand M., Weaver A.L., Fruth K.M. et al. Symptom relief and retreatment after vaginal, open, or robotic surgery for apical vaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2017;23(5):297–309. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000389Anand M., Weaver A.L., Fruth K.M. et al. Symptom relief and retreatment after vaginal, open, or robotic surgery for apical vaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2017;23(5):297–309. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000389Jambusaria L.H., Murphy M., Lucente V.R. One­year functional and anatomic outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy with mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2015;21(2):87–92. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000120Jambusaria L.H., Murphy M., Lucente V.R. One­year functional and anatomic outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy with mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2015;21(2):87–92. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000120Kusuda M., Kagami K., Takahashi I. et al. Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot­assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. BMC Surg 2022;22(1):268. DOI: 10.1186/s12893­022­01702­zKusuda M., Kagami K., Takahashi I. et al. Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot­assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. BMC Surg 2022;22(1):268. DOI: 10.1186/s12893­022­01702­zMartin L.A., Calixte R., Finamore P.S. Reoperation after robotic and vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2015;21(6):315–8. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000194Martin L.A., Calixte R., Finamore P.S. Reoperation after robotic and vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2015;21(6):315–8. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000194Nguyen J.N., Yang S.T. Perioperative outcomes after robotic versus vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg 2020;14(3):415–21. DOI: 10.1007/s11701­019­01006­0Nguyen J.N., Yang S.T. Perioperative outcomes after robotic versus vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg 2020;14(3):415–21. DOI: 10.1007/s11701­019­01006­0Robinson B.L., Parnell B.A., Sandbulte J.T. et al. Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2013;19(4):230–7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318299a66cRobinson B.L., Parnell B.A., Sandbulte J.T. et al. Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2013;19(4):230–7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318299a66cWestermann L.B., Crisp C.C., Mazloomdoost D. et al. Comparative perioperative pain and recovery in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2017;23(2):95–100. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000368Westermann L.B., Crisp C.C., Mazloomdoost D. et al. Comparative perioperative pain and recovery in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2017;23(2):95–100. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000368Shveiky D., Iglesia C.B., Sokol A.I. et al. Robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal colpopexy with mesh: choosing the right surgery for anterior and apical prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2010;16(2):121–7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181d690f3Shveiky D., Iglesia C.B., Sokol A.I. et al. Robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal colpopexy with mesh: choosing the right surgery for anterior and apical prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2010;16(2):121–7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181d690f3Chang C.H., Su T.H., Lau H.H. The changes in bladder function and symptoms after robot­assisted sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2024;63(1):68–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2023.05.016Chang C.H., Su T.H., Lau H.H. The changes in bladder function and symptoms after robot­assisted sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2024;63(1):68–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2023.05.016Smith B.C., Crisp C.C., Kleeman S.D. et al. Uterosacral ligament suspension versus robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2019;25(2):93–8. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000704Smith B.C., Crisp C.C., Kleeman S.D. et al. Uterosacral ligament suspension versus robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2019;25(2):93–8. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000704Anger J.T., Mueller E.R., Tarnay C. et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123(1):5–12. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006Anger J.T., Mueller E.R., Tarnay C. et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123(1):5–12. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006Illiano E., Ditonno P., Giannitsas K. et al. Robot­assisted vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for highstage pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective, randomized, single­center study. Urology 2019;134:116–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.043Illiano E., Ditonno P., Giannitsas K. et al. Robot­assisted vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for highstage pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective, randomized, single­center study. Urology 2019;134:116–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.043Kenton K., Mueller E.R., Tarney C. et al. One­year outcomes after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2016;22(5):382–4. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000300Kenton K., Mueller E.R., Tarney C. et al. One­year outcomes after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2016;22(5):382–4. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000300Paraiso M.F.R., Jelovsek J.E., Frick A. et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(5): 1005–13. DOI: 10.1097/AOG0b013e318231537cParaiso M.F.R., Jelovsek J.E., Frick A. et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118(5): 1005–13. DOI: 10.1097/AOG0b013e318231537cMartoccia A., Al Salhi Y., Fuschi A. et al. Robot­assisted sacrocolpopexy versus trans­vaginal multicompartment prolapse repair: impact on lower bowel tract function. Biomedicines 2023;11(8):2105. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11082105Martoccia A., Al Salhi Y., Fuschi A. et al. Robot­assisted sacrocolpopexy versus trans­vaginal multicompartment prolapse repair: impact on lower bowel tract function. Biomedicines 2023;11(8):2105. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11082105Maher C., Yeung E., Haya N. et al. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;7(7):CD012376. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2Maher C., Yeung E., Haya N. et al. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;7(7):CD012376. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2Di Marco D.S., Chow G.K., Gettman M.T., Elliott D.S. Roboticassisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 2004;63(2):373–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.033Di Marco D.S., Chow G.K., Gettman M.T., Elliott D.S. Roboticassisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 2004;63(2):373–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.033Chang C.L., Chen C.H., Chang S.J. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic­assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(2):297–308. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­021­04741­xChang C.L., Chen C.H., Chang S.J. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic­assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(2):297–308. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­021­04741­xJoint Writing Group of the International Urogynecological Association and the American Urogynecologic Society. AUGS­IUGA Joint clinical consensus statement on enhanced recovery after urogynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(11):2921–40. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­022­05223­4Joint Writing Group of the International Urogynecological Association and the American Urogynecologic Society. AUGS­IUGA Joint clinical consensus statement on enhanced recovery after urogynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2022;33(11):2921–40. DOI: 10.1007/s00192­022­05223­4

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