Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, Porena M (2016) Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol 196(1):159–165
De Gouveia De 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 Urogynecology J 27:3–17
Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, Murphy M, Lukban J, Jeppson P, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group (2014) Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(3):353–361
Yim GW, Jung YW, Paek J, Lee SH, Kwon HY, Nam EJ, Kim SW (2010) Transumbilical single-port access versus conventional total laparoscopic hysterectomy: surgical outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(1):26-e1
Kim TJ, Lee YY, Cha HH, Kim CJ, Choi CH, Lee JW, Kim BG (2010) Single-port-access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a comparison of perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc 24:2248–2252
Corrado G, Calagna G, Cutillo G, Insinga S, Mancini E, Baiocco E, Vizza E (2018) The patient and observer scar assessment scale to evaluate the cosmetic outcomes of the robotic single-site hysterectomy in endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 28(1):194–199
Iavazzo C, Minis EE, Gkegkes ID (2018) Single-site port robotic-assisted hysterectomy: an update. J Robot Surg 12:201–213
Whitmyre N, Griebel L, Buckner-Petty S, Kim KH, Yi J (2023) Outcomes of single port robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with multi-port approaches. Intell Surg 6:21–24
Shin HJ, Yoo HK, Lee JH, Lee SR, Jeong K, Moon HS (2020) Robotic single-port surgery using the da Vinci SP® surgical system for benign gynecologic disease: a preliminary report. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 59(2):243–247
Lee SR, Roh AM, Jeong K, Kim SH, Chae HD, Moon HS (2021) First report comparing the two types of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy: Single site using the da Vinci Xi or Si system and single port using the da Vinci SP system. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 60(1):60–65
Ganesan V, Goueli R, Rodriguez D, Hess D, Carmel M (2020) Single-port robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with magnetic retraction: first experience using the SP da Vinci platform. J Robot Surg 14:753–758
Goueli R, Rodriguez D, Hess D, Ganesan V, Carmel M (2020) Single-port robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with magnetic retraction: a video demonstration. Urology 143:258–260
Lee SR, Kim S, Chae H, Kang BM (2019) Single-port robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy using the SP surgical system: first clinical experience. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 26(7):S74
Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C (1994) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 84(5):885–888
Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group (2015) Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 125(1):44–55
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, Ghezzi F (2014) Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 66(2):303–318
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, Kenton K (2014) Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 123(1):5
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Holloway RW, Patel SD, Ahmad S (2009) Robotic surgery in gynecology. Scand J Surg 98(2):96–109
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118(5):1005–1013
Tan JS, Lukacz ES, Menefee SA, Powell CR, Nager CW, San Diego Pelvic Floor Consortium (2005) Predictive value of prolapse symptoms: a large database study. Int Urogynecology J 16:203–209
Comments (0)