ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Surg.
Sec. Obstetrics and Gynecological Surgery
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2025.1625404
This article is part of the Research TopicCurrent Advances in the Understanding and Management of Pelvic Organ ProlapseView all 9 articles
Laparoscopic vs. Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: Influence of Age, BMI, and Parity on Perioperative Outcomes
Provisionally accepted
Mila Strauss1*
Lieven Kennes2
Janina S Dombrowski3Elmar Stickeler1Charlotte Gräf1Katharina Lube1Alessia Hillmeyer1
Laila Najjari1- 1University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
- 2Department of Econometrics and Statistics, Stralsund, Germany
- 3Department of Economics, Stralsund, Germany
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy are established techniques for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair, but their performance in patients with higher age, BMI, and parity remains underexplored. Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, we analyzed 162 women undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy between 2010 and 2023: n = 104 via laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and n = 58 via robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC). Patients were included if they had symptomatic or asymptomatic POP stage II or higher. Primary outcomes were surgical duration and length of postoperative hospital stay; secondary outcomes included intra- and postoperative complications. Regression analyses were used to assess the influence of age, BMI, and number of births. Results: Mean patient age was 64 ± 11.2 years. Surgical duration increased significantly with BMI (+2.82 min/unit, 95% CI: 0.50, 5.14, p = 0.0177) and parity (+9.8 min/birth, CI: 0.56, 19.14, p = 0.0379) in the LSC group, but not significantly in RASC (Surgical duration: (+2.00 min/unit, 95% CI: -0.53, 4.63, p = 0.1167; parity: +8.7 min/birth, 95% CI: 0.50, 5.14, p = 0.0698). Postoperative stay was significantly prolonged with higher age (95% CI = 0.006, 0.057, p = 0.0152), BMI (95% CI = 0.019, 0.154, p = 0.0130), and number of vaginal births (95% CI = 0.008, 0.59, p = 0.01) in LSC, while these associations were attenuated in RASC (age: 95% CI: -0.0213, 0.0249, p = 0.876; BMI: -95% CI: -0.038, 0.060, p = 0.667; vaginal birth: 95% CI = 0.10, 0.44, p = 0.003). Overall complication rates exhibited no measurable difference between the groups (LSC 18%, RASC 19%). Complications were more frequent with fixation at the vaginal vault than the cervix. Conclusion: Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy appears to offer greater procedural consistency in patients with advanced age, obesity, and higher parity. These findings support the selective use of robotic assistance in anatomically or clinically complex cases and add to the limited evidence guiding personalized surgical planning in POP repair.
Keywords: Laparoscopic, Obesity, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, robotic, Sacrocolpopexy
Received: 08 May 2025; Accepted: 30 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Strauss, Kennes, Dombrowski, Stickeler, Gräf, Lube, Hillmeyer and Najjari. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Mila Strauss, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.