title: A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) has spread rapidly without the availability of comprehensive and systematically recorded outcome data.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To systematically review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and RALSC.
  
  
  METHODS
  PubMed and Scopus were searched for reports published from 2000 to 2014, using the search terms "robotic sacrocolpopexy," "laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy," and "sacral colpopexy."
  
  
  METHODS
  Studies were included if they directly compared the outcomes of RALSC and LSC, the sample size in each group was more than 15, the follow-up duration was longer than 3 months, and the report was in English.
  
  
  METHODS
  The studies' characteristics, quality, and outcomes were recorded. Random-/fixed-effects models were used to combine data.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Data on 264 RALSC and 267 LSC procedures were collected from seven studies. The mean operative time was longer in the RALSC group (245.9 minutes vs 205.9 minutes; P<0.001). The estimated blood loss in the two groups was similar (114.4 mL vs 160.1 mL; P=0.36). The differences in incidence of intraoperative/postoperative complications were also similar (P=0.85 vs P=0.92). The costs of RALSC were significantly higher than were those of LSC series in each of three studies (P<0.01 for all).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The clinical outcomes of prolapse surgery are similar with RALSC and LSC, but RALSC is less efficient in terms of cost and time.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
authors.forename: Ke
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Pan
authors.affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive Medicine, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China; Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology Center, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
authors.forename: Yao
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
authors.forename: Yanzhou
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.affiliation: School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
authors.forename: Yunle
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. Electronic address: huichengxu123@163.com.
authors.forename: Huicheng
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Xu
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D061646:Operative Time; D017060:Patient Satisfaction / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D056887:Pelvic Organ Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D065287:Robotic Surgical Procedures / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014621:Vagina / Q000601:surgery
keywords: Laparoscopy; Pelvic organ prolapse; Robotics; Sacrocolpopexy