title: Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  : 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. χ 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.
authors.affiliation: From the *Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla; and †Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente San Diego, San Diego, CA.
authors.forename: Jasmine
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Tan-Kim
authors.forename: Shawn A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Menefee
authors.forename: Karl M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Luber
authors.forename: Charles W
authors.initials: CW
authors.lastname: Nager
authors.forename: Emily S
authors.initials: ES
authors.lastname: Lukacz