{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,26]],"date-time":"2026-09-26T15:22:42Z","timestamp":1790436162597,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":62,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,3]],"date-time":"2025-11-03T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1762128000000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,3]],"date-time":"2025-11-03T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1762128000000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"name":"Universit\u00e4tsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein - Campus Kiel"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J Robotic Surg"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>We aim to evaluate the current role of robot-assisted surgery in urogynecology by comparing its outcomes and applications to those of laparoscopic surgery. We ran a computed search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid MEDLINE in January 2024. Our review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024500936). Our search strategy targeted commonly performed urogynecological surgeries, such as Burch colposuspension, fistula repair, urethropexy, pelvic organ prolapse (POP), sacrohysteropexy, sacrocolpopexy, cervicosacropexy, enterocele, cystocele, urinary incontinence, pectopexy, cervicopectopexy, colpopectopexy, native tissue repair, and anterior and posterior colporrhaphy. We included only original studies comparing robot-assisted and laparoscopic approaches in urogynecological surgeries. Additionally, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of the selected studies. Our final analysis included 36 studies, where 32 studies focused on POP, with sacrocolpopexy being the most frequently performed procedure (88.9%). Most of the studies originated from high-income countries. Most studies were retrospective (63.9%). The analysis included data on 29,172 patients, with 52.5% undergoing laparoscopy and 47.5% undergoing robot-assisted surgery. While no significant differences were observed in complications such as mesh erosion, the robot-assisted surgery group exhibited a higher incidence, where all of them were sacrocolpopexy cases. The follow-up duration ranged from one week to three years, with substantial variability in the reporting of surgical duration and complications. Although robot-assisted surgery might promise improvements in urogynecology, particularly in sacrocolpopexy, the comparison with laparoscopy is inconclusive in terms of patient outcomes and complications. Further standardization of reporting and long-term data are needed to refine these findings. The major limitation of our study was the high heterogeneity among the studies.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/s11701-025-02885-2","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,3]],"date-time":"2025-11-03T16:29:38Z","timestamp":1762187378000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":6,"title":["A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of robot vs. laparoscopic surgery in urogynecology: current trends and future directions"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"19","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-4499-6543","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Esra","family":"Bilir","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Xezal","family":"Derin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jasmina","family":"Veta Darkovski","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Manou Manpreet","family":"Kaur","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Johannes","family":"Ackermann","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Nicolai","family":"Maass","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Leila","family":"Allahqoli","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Rufus","family":"Cartwright","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-7194-6034","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Ibrahim","family":"Alkatout","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,3]]},"reference":[{"issue":"4","key":"2885_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"304","DOI":"10.1097\/GCO.0000000000000293","volume":"28","author":"M Truong","year":"2016","unstructured":"Truong M et al (2016) Advantages of robots in benign gynecologic surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 28(4):304\u2013310","journal-title":"Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2885_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.3389\/fsurg.2021.799442","volume":"8","author":"I Alkatout","year":"2021","unstructured":"Alkatout I et al (2021) The development of laparoscopy-a historical overview. Front Surg 8:799442","journal-title":"Front Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"2885_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"em446","DOI":"10.29333\/ejgm\/12793","volume":"20","author":"A Meirmanova","year":"2023","unstructured":"Meirmanova A, Omarova G, Kurmanova A, Begniyazova Z, Yuldasheva A (2023) Surgical management of genital prolapse and combined gynecological pathologies in women: a meta-analysis. Electron J Gen Med 20(2):em446. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.29333\/ejgm\/12793","journal-title":"Electron J Gen Med"},{"issue":"6","key":"2885_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1278","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181c2ce96","volume":"114","author":"JM Wu","year":"2009","unstructured":"Wu JM et al (2009) Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol 114(6):1278\u20131283","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"2","key":"2885_CR5","first-page":"CD012079","volume":"2","author":"C Maher","year":"2016","unstructured":"Maher C et al (2016) Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2(2):CD012079","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"issue":"10","key":"2885_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1997","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-020-04407-0","volume":"31","author":"N Ng-Stollmann","year":"2020","unstructured":"Ng-Stollmann N et al (2020) The international discussion and the new regulations concerning transvaginal mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 31(10):1997\u20132002","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"355","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-015-2763-0","volume":"27","author":"M De Gouveia De Sa","year":"2016","unstructured":"De Gouveia De Sa M et al (2016) Robot versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 27(3):355\u2013366","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"252","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000070","volume":"20","author":"CO Hudson","year":"2014","unstructured":"Hudson CO et al (2014) Outcomes of robot sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20(5):252\u2013260","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"2885_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"987","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm13040987","volume":"13","author":"Y Degirmenci","year":"2024","unstructured":"Degirmenci Y et al (2024) Trends in urogynecology-transvaginal mesh surgery in Germany. J Clin Med 13(4):987","journal-title":"J Clin Med"},{"key":"2885_CR10","unstructured":"Bilir E, Alkatout I, Kaur MM, Cartwright R. Comparative analysis of robot surgery versus laparoscopy in urogynecologic surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2024 CRD42024500936 Available from: https:\/\/www.crd.york.ac.uk\/prospero\/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024500936."},{"key":"2885_CR11","unstructured":"Covidence systematic review software, veritas health innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available online: www.covidence.org)."},{"issue":"1","key":"2885_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"89","DOI":"10.1186\/s13643-021-01626-4","volume":"10","author":"MJ Page","year":"2021","unstructured":"Page MJ et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10(1):89","journal-title":"Syst Rev"},{"key":"2885_CR13","unstructured":"World Health Organization. Indicator metadata registry list-income level https:\/\/www.who.int\/data\/gho\/indicator-metadata-registry\/imr-details\/193 . Accessed on 8th Jan 2025."},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"178","DOI":"10.1007\/PL00004033","volume":"12","author":"AM Weber","year":"2001","unstructured":"Weber AM et al (2001) The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12(3):178\u2013186","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct"},{"key":"2885_CR15","unstructured":"Google Scholar https:\/\/scholar.google.com. Accessed on 4th Oct 2025."},{"key":"2885_CR16","unstructured":"Google Colab. Google colaboratory. Accessed [Jan. 2025]. https:\/\/colab.research.google.com."},{"issue":"4","key":"2885_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"216","DOI":"10.1038\/nrurol.2015.51","volume":"12","author":"KP Sajadi","year":"2015","unstructured":"Sajadi KP, Goldman HB (2015) Robot pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol 12(4):216\u2013224","journal-title":"Nat Rev Urol"},{"issue":"2","key":"2885_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"297","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-021-04741-x","volume":"33","author":"CL Chang","year":"2022","unstructured":"Chang CL, Chen CH, Chang SJ (2022) Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 33(2):297\u2013308","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"8","key":"2885_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1621","DOI":"10.1007\/s00384-021-03904-y","volume":"36","author":"J Flynn","year":"2021","unstructured":"Flynn J et al (2021) Robot versus laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 36(8):1621\u20131631","journal-title":"Int J Colorectal Dis"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1264","DOI":"10.1002\/nau.24411","volume":"39","author":"A Nemirovsky","year":"2020","unstructured":"Nemirovsky A et al (2020) A systematic review of best practices for the perioperative management of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Neurourol Urodyn 39(5):1264\u20131275","journal-title":"Neurourol Urodyn"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"712","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2015.02.023","volume":"22","author":"JR Miklos","year":"2015","unstructured":"Miklos JR, Moore RD (2015) The 26-minute laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: do we really need robot technology? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22(5):712","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2677","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-024-10774-2","volume":"38","author":"D Ferrari","year":"2024","unstructured":"Ferrari D et al (2024) The death of laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 38(5):2677\u20132688","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"issue":"1","key":"2885_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"53","DOI":"10.3390\/medicina60010053","volume":"60","author":"I Alkatout","year":"2023","unstructured":"Alkatout I et al (2023) Expanding robot-assisted surgery in gynecology using the potential of an advanced robot system. Medicina (Kaunas) 60(1):53","journal-title":"Medicina (Kaunas)"},{"issue":"13","key":"2885_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3754","DOI":"10.3390\/jcm11133754","volume":"11","author":"I Alkatout","year":"2022","unstructured":"Alkatout I, Salehiniya H, Allahqoli L (2022) Assessment of the Versius robot surgical system in minimal access surgery: a systematic review. J Clin Med 11(13):3754","journal-title":"J Clin Med"},{"key":"2885_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1181824","DOI":"10.3389\/fsurg.2023.1181824","volume":"10","author":"G Panico","year":"2023","unstructured":"Panico G et al (2023) The first 60 cases of robot sacrocolpopexy with the novel HUGO RAS system: feasibility, setting and perioperative outcomes. Front Surg 10:1181824","journal-title":"Front Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"2885_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"223","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-008-0744-2","volume":"20","author":"M Patel","year":"2009","unstructured":"Patel M, O\u2019Sullivan D, Tulikangas P (2009) A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 20(2):223\u2013228","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1008","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2009.02.086","volume":"74","author":"WM White","year":"2009","unstructured":"White WM et al (2009) Single-port laparoscopic abdominal sacral colpopexy: initial experience and comparative outcomes. Urology 74(5):1008\u20131012","journal-title":"Urology"},{"issue":"4","key":"2885_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"493","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2010.03.011","volume":"17","author":"JP Judd","year":"2010","unstructured":"Judd JP et al (2010) Cost-minimization analysis of robot-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):493\u2013499","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2885_CR29","first-page":"54","volume":"17","author":"SS Chan","year":"2011","unstructured":"Chan SS et al (2011) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robot assistance. Hong Kong Med J 17(1):54\u201360","journal-title":"Hong Kong Med J"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1005","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e318231537c","volume":"118","author":"MFR Paraiso","year":"2011","unstructured":"Paraiso MFR et al (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robot sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118(5):1005\u20131013","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2885_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"44","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf","volume":"17","author":"J Tan-Kim","year":"2011","unstructured":"Tan-Kim J et al (2011) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17(1):44\u201349","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"342","DOI":"10.1007\/DCR.0b013e3181f4737e","volume":"54","author":"MT Wong","year":"2011","unstructured":"Wong MT et al (2011) Robot versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 54(3):342\u2013346","journal-title":"Dis Colon Rectum"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"158","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0b013e31824b218d","volume":"18","author":"DD Antosh","year":"2012","unstructured":"Antosh DD et al (2012) Short-term outcomes of robot versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 18(3):158\u2013161","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"2","key":"2885_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"122","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0b013e31824a3995","volume":"18","author":"SJ Pulliam","year":"2012","unstructured":"Pulliam SJ, Weinstein MM, Wakamatsu MM (2012) Minimally invasive apical sacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robot operating room experiences. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 18(2):122\u2013126","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"393","DOI":"10.1007\/s00345-011-0748-2","volume":"30","author":"J Seror","year":"2012","unstructured":"Seror J et al (2012) Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol 30(3):393\u2013398","journal-title":"World J Urol"},{"issue":"6","key":"2885_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1181","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-012-2691-x","volume":"287","author":"N Awad","year":"2013","unstructured":"Awad N et al (2013) Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robot sacrocolpopexy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287(6):1181\u20131186","journal-title":"Arch Gynecol Obstet"},{"issue":"8","key":"2885_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e469","DOI":"10.1111\/codi.12251","volume":"15","author":"S Mantoo","year":"2013","unstructured":"Mantoo S et al (2013) Is robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy superior to laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy in the management of obstructed defaecation? Colorectal Dis 15(8):e469\u2013e475","journal-title":"Colorectal Dis"},{"issue":"1","key":"2885_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"5","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000000006","volume":"123","author":"JT Anger","year":"2014","unstructured":"Anger JT et al (2014) Robot compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 123(1):5\u201312","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"17","key":"2885_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1106","DOI":"10.1016\/j.purol.2014.09.045","volume":"24","author":"M Joubert","year":"2014","unstructured":"Joubert M et al (2014) Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women. Prog Urol 24(17):1106\u20131113","journal-title":"Prog Urol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2885_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"33","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000036","volume":"20","author":"PA Nosti","year":"2014","unstructured":"Nosti PA et al (2014) Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20(1):33\u201337","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"547.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2014.07.054","volume":"211","author":"CA Unger","year":"2014","unstructured":"Unger CA et al (2014) Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 211(5):547.e1\u20138","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR42","first-page":"113","volume":"37","author":"G Cucinella","year":"2016","unstructured":"Cucinella G et al (2016) Robot versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case-control study. G Chir 37(3):113\u2013117","journal-title":"G Chir"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"382","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000300","volume":"22","author":"K Kenton","year":"2016","unstructured":"Kenton K et al (2016) One-year outcomes after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 22(5):382\u2013384","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"6","key":"2885_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"917","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2016.05.001","volume":"23","author":"ER Mueller","year":"2016","unstructured":"Mueller ER et al (2016) Cosmetic appearance of port-site scars 1 year after laparoscopic versus robot sacrocolpopexy: a supplementary study of the ACCESS clinical trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(6):917\u2013921","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"4","key":"2885_CR45","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"267","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000269","volume":"22","author":"MG Mueller","year":"2016","unstructured":"Mueller MG et al (2016) Outcomes in 450 women after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 22(4):267\u2013271","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"2885_CR46","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"593","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-015-2869-4","volume":"27","author":"J Paek","year":"2016","unstructured":"Paek J et al (2016) Robot or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 27(4):593\u2013599","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"4","key":"2885_CR47","first-page":"261","volume":"82","author":"R Pilka","year":"2017","unstructured":"Pilka R et al (2017) Laparoscopic and robot sacropexy: retrospective review of learning curve experiences and follow-up. Ceska Gynekol 82(4):261\u2013267","journal-title":"Ceska Gynekol"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR48","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"188","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000313","volume":"23","author":"CA Unger","year":"2017","unstructured":"Unger CA et al (2017) Long-term effectiveness of uterosacral colpopexy and minimally invasive sacral colpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 23(3):188\u2013194","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"2885_CR49","first-page":"116","volume":"134","author":"E Illiano","year":"2019","unstructured":"Illiano E et al (2019) Robot-assisted Vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for high-stage pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective, randomized. Single-center Study Urol 134:116\u2013123","journal-title":"Single-center Study Urol"},{"issue":"9","key":"2885_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1763","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-020-04291-8","volume":"31","author":"TN Thomas","year":"2020","unstructured":"Thomas TN et al (2020) Long-term pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and mesh exposure following sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 31(9):1763\u20131770","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"8","key":"2885_CR51","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2185","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-020-04663-0","volume":"32","author":"KA Greene","year":"2021","unstructured":"Greene KA et al (2021) Adnexal surgery at the time of hysterectomy in women 65 years and older undergoing hysterectomy for prolapse: do practice trends differ by route of surgery? Int Urogynecol J 32(8):2185\u20132193","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"11","key":"2885_CR52","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1868","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2021.04.001","volume":"28","author":"A Jaresova","year":"2021","unstructured":"Jaresova A et al (2021) Comparison of trendelenburg angles in vaginal, laparoscopic, and robot uterovaginal apical prolapse repairs. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 28(11):1868\u20131875","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR53","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"785","DOI":"10.1007\/s11701-020-01177-1","volume":"15","author":"M Lallemant","year":"2021","unstructured":"Lallemant M et al (2021) Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robot assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg 15(5):785\u2013792","journal-title":"J Robot Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"2885_CR54","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"483","DOI":"10.23736\/S0026-4806.20.06561-1","volume":"112","author":"G Panico","year":"2021","unstructured":"Panico G et al (2021) Minimally invasive surgery in urogynecology: a comparison of standard laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic, percutaneous surgical system, and robot sacral colpopexy. Minerva Med 112(4):483\u2013491","journal-title":"Minerva Med"},{"issue":"2","key":"2885_CR55","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e408","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000948","volume":"27","author":"R Wang","year":"2021","unstructured":"Wang R, Hacker MR, Richardson M (2021) Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment pathways for prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 27(2):e408\u2013e413","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"5","key":"2885_CR56","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e142","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000001133","volume":"28","author":"SE Andiman","year":"2022","unstructured":"Andiman SE et al (2022) Surgical complications and hospital costs in robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy with concurrent sacrocolpopexy: analysis of the nationwide readmissions database. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 28(5):e142\u2013e148","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"9","key":"2885_CR57","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1063","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2022.05.013","volume":"29","author":"SG Clark","year":"2022","unstructured":"Clark SG et al (2022) Operative time for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: comparison of conventional laparoscopy versus robot platform. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 29(9):1063\u20131067","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR58","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"178","DOI":"10.34057\/PPj.2022.41.03.2022-11-1","volume":"41","author":"E \u00d6zba\u015fli","year":"2022","unstructured":"\u00d6zba\u015fli E, G\u00fcng\u00f6r M (2022) Perioperative outcomes of robot versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Pelviperineology 41(3):178\u2013184","journal-title":"Pelviperineology"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR59","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"261","DOI":"10.5005\/jp-journals-10006-2059","volume":"14","author":"LH Texeira","year":"2022","unstructured":"Texeira LH et al (2022) Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (laparoscopic and robot): its outcomes and complications\u2014our experience. J South Asian Fed Obstet Gynaecol 14(3):261\u2013264","journal-title":"J South Asian Fed Obstet Gynaecol"},{"key":"2885_CR60","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"200","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2023.11.016","volume":"31","author":"W Nilsson","year":"2023","unstructured":"Nilsson W et al (2023) Comparing postoperative pain with laparoscopic versus robot sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 31:200\u2013204","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"2885_CR61","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"114","DOI":"10.1002\/ijgo.14497","volume":"161","author":"D Shigemi","year":"2023","unstructured":"Shigemi D, Okada A, Yasunaga H (2023) Postoperative adverse events and re-treatment among patients who have undergone laparoscopic and robot sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 161(1):114\u2013119","journal-title":"Int J Gynaecol Obstet"},{"issue":"3","key":"2885_CR62","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"492","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003102","volume":"133","author":"LC Turner","year":"2019","unstructured":"Turner LC, Zyczynski HM, Shepherd JP (2019) Intravenous acetaminophen before pelvic organ prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 133(3):492\u2013502","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"}],"container-title":["Journal of Robotic Surgery"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11701-025-02885-2.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s11701-025-02885-2","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11701-025-02885-2.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,4]],"date-time":"2026-01-04T01:21:18Z","timestamp":1767489678000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s11701-025-02885-2"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,3]]},"references-count":62,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,12]]}},"alternative-id":["2885"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11701-025-02885-2","relation":{},"ISSN":["1863-2491"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1863-2491","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,3]]},"assertion":[{"value":"24 June 2025","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"6 October 2025","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"3 November 2025","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflict of interest"}}],"article-number":"748"}}