One-year recurrence and reoperation after sacrocolpopexy in a multispecialty retrospective cohort

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is increasingly prevalent, contributing to a growing surgical burden with an aging population. This study compared patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and one-year recurrence and reoperation rates of robotic sacrocolpopexy performed by urologists versus gynecologists to evaluate whether surgical specialty influences outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of patients undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy (n = 185) for pelvic organ prolapse between November 2016 and December 2024. Cases were identified using ICD-10 code N81 and CPT code 57425 and grouped by surgical specialty and inpatient versus outpatient status. A subgroup analysis evaluated patients undergoing concurrent supracervical hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. Outcomes included patient demographics, length of stay, complications, readmissions, recurrence, and duration of follow-up. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS v29.0, with appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests for continuous variables and chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Urology-performed sacrocolpopexies (n = 122) were more frequently performed in patients with stage 3 pelvic organ prolapse (47% vs. 11%, p < 0.001), symptomatic prolapse (99% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), and outpatient status (40% vs. 11%, p = 0.03), compared to gynecology-performed procedures (n = 63). No significant differences were observed between specialties in length of stay, complication rates, readmissions, or recurrence for either inpatient or outpatient procedures. Conclusion: Robotic sacrocolpopexy is safe and effective when performed by both urologists and gynecologists, with comparable perioperative and short-term outcomes regardless of surgical specialty or care setting.