Skip Navigation LinksHome > January/February 2011 - Volume 17 - Issue 1 > Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: Comparing...
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery:
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf
Original Article

Robotic-Assisted and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: Comparing Operative Times, Costs and Outcomes

Tan-Kim, Jasmine MD*†; Menefee, Shawn A. MD†; Luber, Karl M. MD†; Nager, Charles W. MD*; Lukacz, Emily S. MD*

Journal Club
Collapse Box


Objectives: To compare operative times, hospital costs, and surgical outcomes for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC).

Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 104 subjects who underwent RALSC (n = 43) or LSC (n = 61) for vaginal vault prolapse was performed. The primary outcomes were operative time and hospital costs. The secondary outcomes included blood loss, complications, and objective cure rates. χ2 and t tests were used.

Results: The mean operative time was longer in RALSC than in LSC (281 ± 58 vs 206 ± 42 minutes; P < 0.001) with setup time accounting for only 9 minutes of this difference. Direct costs (expressed in cost units) for hospital stay were similar (437 ± 88 vs 450 ± 119 units; P = 0.738) while surgical costs remained higher for RALSC (2724 ± 413 vs 2295 ± 342 units; P < 0.01). Blood loss and complications were similar, and objective cure was not significantly different for RALSC vs LSC (90% vs 80%, P = 0.19).

Conclusions: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy achieves similar perioperative outcomes compared to LSC with increased surgical time resulting in increased costs.

© 2011 by Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins


Article Tools


Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.