St Martin B, Markowitz MA, Myers ER et al (2023) Estimated national cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005485

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P et al (2014) Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 66:303–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

De Gouveia Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA (2016) Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 27:3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2765-y

Article  Google Scholar 

Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA et al (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:234–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.004

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR (2014) Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20:252–260. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000070

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Culligan PJ, Lewis C, Priestley J, Mushonga N (2020) Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using lightweight Y-mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 26:202–206. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000788

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lallemant M, Tresch C, Puyraveau M et al (2020) Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01177-1

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jong K, Klein T, Zimmern PE (2018) Long-term outcomes of robotic mesh sacrocolpopexy. J Robot Surg 12:455–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0757-2

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK (1995) Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Neurourol Urodyn 14:131–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.1930140206

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lalwani N, Khatri G, El Sayed RF et al (2021) MR defecography technique: recommendations of the society of abdominal radiology’s disease-focused panel on pelvic floor imaging. Abdom Radiol (NY) 46:1351–1361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02160-7

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M et al (2012) An international urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 31:415–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22238

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Linder BJ, Chow GK, Elliott DS (2015) Long-term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Urol 22:1155–1158. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12900

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Khalil N, Moubarak M, Alkassis M et al (2023) Long term follow-up after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 34:1279–1283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05430-z

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Berger AA, Bretschneider CE, Gregory WT, Sung V (2024) Longitudinal reoperation risk after apical prolapse procedures in women aged 65 years and older. Obstet Gynecol 143:411. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005511

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Shah NM, Berger AA, Zhuang Z et al (2022) Long-term reoperation risk after apical prolapse repair in female pelvic reconstructive surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 227:306.e1-306.e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.05.046

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Panico G, Campagna G, Vacca L et al (2022) Redo laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for POP recurrence: Is it the right call? Eur J Obstetr Gynecol Reprod Biol 276:63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.06.023

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Kuprasertkul A, Christie AL, Alhalabi F, Zimmern P (2021) Very long-term follow-up of the anterior vaginal wall suspension procedure for incontinence and/or prolapse repair. World J Urol 39:533–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03190-3

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Christmann-Schmid C, Bruehlmann E, Koerting I, Joerg K (2018) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without midurethral sling insertion: Is a two- step approach justified? A prospective study. Eur J Obstetr Gynecol and Reprod Biol 229:98–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.08.009

Article  Google Scholar 

Lewis C, Salamon C, Priestley JL et al (2014) Prospective cohort study of bowel function after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20:87–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000049

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cortes ARB, Hayashi T, Nomura M et al (2022) Medium term anatomical and functional outcomes following modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 33:3111–3121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05076-x

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zimmern PE, Dandreo KJ, Sirls L et al (2011) Lessons from a patient experience survey in a randomized surgical trial of treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Int Urogynecol J 22:1273–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1507-z

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rolstad S, Adler J, Rydén A (2011) Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value in Health 14:1101–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.003

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar