Original ArticlesReoperation After Robotic and Vaginal Mesh Reconstructive Surgery A Retrospective Cohort StudyMartin, Lindsay Ann MD*; Calixte, Rose PhD†; Finamore, Peter S. MA, MD*Author Information From the *Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and †Department of Biostatistics, Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola, NY Reprints: Lindsay A Martin, MD, 101 Jackson Avenue 1C, Mineola, NY 11501. E-mail: [email protected]. Peter Finamore is a consultant for Boston Scientific Inc. and proctor for Intuitive Surgical Inc. The remaining authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery: November/December 2015 - Volume 21 - Issue 6 - p 315-318 doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000194 Buy Metrics Abstract Objectives Our primary objective was to compare reoperations after robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh for apical prolapse repair. Our secondary aim was to record perioperative complications after robotic and vaginal surgeries. Methods We reviewed medical records of women who underwent vaginal apical mesh support procedures or robotic sacrocolpopexy at Winthrop University Hospital between August 2009 and August 2013. We compared reoperations and perioperative complications between the 2 groups. Results There were 245 eligible cases during the 4-year study period. One hundred eighty-one women underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and 64 women underwent transvaginal mesh. Women who underwent robotic surgery were younger and had decreased blood loss. Patients were followed up for a median of 3 months after robotic surgery and 11.5 months after transvaginal mesh. We found no difference in overall rate of reoperation between robotic and transvaginal mesh repair for apical prolapse. Specifically, there was no difference in the rate of reoperation for mesh exposure. Conclusions Despite recent controversies, transvaginal mesh offers the benefit of an effective minimally invasive procedure with shorter operative times, and may not pose additional risk for reoperation when compared to robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Copyright © 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.