Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Apical Compartment Prolapse.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ko KJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7332820 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Apical Compartment Prolapse.
Ko Kwang Jin KJ Lee Kyu-Sung KS
International neurourology journal 20200630 2
Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is the gold-standard treatment for apical compartment prolapse, as it is more effective and durable than the transvaginal approach. In the current era of minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy techniques have been described, but have not gained popularity due to their complexity and steep learning curves. To overcome this problem, robotic sacrocolpopexy was introduced, and has shown equivalent outcomes and safety compared to open and laparoscopic sacroco ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in the field of gynaecology, including pelvic floor surgery. To assess the benefits of RAS, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. The Cochrane Library (1970-January 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), and EMBASE (1974 to January 2015) were searched, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We identified two randomized trials (n = 78) comparing laparoscopic with robotic sacrocolpopexy. The Paraiso 2011 study showed that laparoscopic was faster than robotic sacrocolpopexy (199 ± 46 vs. 265 ± 50 min; p < .001), yet in the ACCESS trial, no difference was present (225 ± 62.3 vs. 246.5 ± 51.3 min; p = .110). Costs for using the robot were significantly higher in both studies, however, in the ACCESS trial, only when purchase and maintenance of the robot was included (LSC US$11,573 ± 3191 vs. RASC US$19,616 ± 3135; p < .001). In the Paraiso study, RASC was more expensive even without considering those costs (LSC US$ 14,342 ± 2941 vs. RASC 16,278 ± 3326; p = 0.008). Pain was reportedly higher after RASC, although at different time points after the operation. There were no differences in anatomical outcomes, pelvic floor function, and quality of life. The experience with RASC was tenfold lower than that with LSC in both studies. The heterogeneity between the two studies precluded a meta-analysis. Based on small randomized studies, with surgeons less experienced in RAS than in laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery significantly increases the cost of a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. RASC would be more sustainable if its costs would be lower. Though RASC may have other benefits, such as reduction of the learning curve and increased ergonomics or dexterity, these remain to be demonstrated.
| S-EPMC4854942 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSacrocolpopexy is the gold standard procedure for treating pelvic organ prolapse (POP) patients with apical defects. Different surgical approaches have emerged and been utilized successively, including traditional laparoscopy, single-hole laparoscopy, robotic laparoscopy, vaginal-assisted laparoscopy, and transvaginal approaches. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has attracted increasing attention as an emerging surgical technique and has unique advantages, such as a "simulated wrist" mechanical arm and high-definition three-dimensional (3D) visual field, which has gradually begun to be utilized in the clinical setting.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist, and a systematic literature search was conducted on six databases from their inception to 1st March 2020. We evaluated patients with POP who underwent RSC or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), outcomes (including perioperative outcomes: blood loss, operating times, blood transfusion, and hospital stay), surgery-related complications, as well as cure and recurrence rates.ResultsA total of 49 articles were available, including 3,014 patients, among which 18 were comparative studies on LSC vs. RSC, and 31 were non-comparative single-arm studies on RSC. For RSC, median operative time was 226 [90-604] minutes, estimated blood loss was 56 [5-1,500] mL, and hospital stay was 1.55 [1-16] days. Intraoperative complications and postoperative complications occurred in 74 (2.7%) and 360 (13.0%) patients, respectively. Of 2,768 RSC patients, 40 had been converted from a robot-assisted approach to other approaches, and 134 of 1,852 patients (7.2%) have recurrent prolapses of any compartment. Compared to LSC, RSC was associated with significantly lower blood loss and lower conversion rate. However, more operative time was observed in RSC. No significant differences were observed in perioperative transfusion, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or objective recurrence between RSC and LSC.ConclusionsRSC's application seems to contribute some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to promote equivalent clinical outcomes. Notably, heterogeneity among studies might have affected the outcome of the study. Consequently, high-quality and large-sample randomized trials comparing both techniques are necessitated.
| S-EPMC8039662 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vaginoplasty is commonly performed to treat gender dysphoria in transgender women. Neovaginal prolapse is a late complication of vaginoplasty, and there is minimal literature regarding its surgical management. We report a case of robotic sacrocolpopexy using medial umbilical ligament autologous graft to treat neovaginal prolapse in a transgender woman, which is a novel technique that has not been previously described. The procedure resulted in a good postoperative outcome for the patient. The innovative use of medial umbilical ligament autologous graft enabled the patient to benefit from a fully minimally invasive procedure whilst avoiding the risks associated with synthetic mesh.
| S-EPMC10587753 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo introduce a novel technique of transvaginal extraperitoneal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (ESLS) for apical prolapse and to evaluate the feasibility and short-term outcomes of this technique.MethodsSixteen patients were enrolled to undergo ESLS between January 2020 and May 2021. Perioperative outcomes were included. Short-term results were assessed by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) scores, mesh exposure and prolapse recurrence.ResultsA total of 14/16 cases (87.5%) were successfully completed. The mean operation time was 118 min (range 85-160), and the mean blood loss was 68 ml (range 20-100). The mean postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at 24 h was 0.7. No intraoperative complications occurred except for one patient who developed subcutaneous emphysema. All patients gained a significant improvement in both physical prolapse and quality of life at 12 months after surgery, and there was no mesh exposure or prolapse recurrence.ConclusionsOur experience showed that transvaginal ESLS is a feasible and effective technique for apical prolapse with a previous hysterectomy. However, this technique should be performed by surgeons with extensive experience both in vaginal surgery and laparoscopic single-port surgery.
| S-EPMC10792983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sacrocolpopexy has been dubbed the “gold standard” repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study sought to determine a genetic cause for sacrocolpopexy failure by comparing genotypes from 10 women who suffered from early POP reoccurance after sacrocolpopexy surgery, versus 40 randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure. We objectively defined early overt failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as having a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system examination (POP-Q) of stage III or IV occurring in more than one compartment within six months after surgery. All medical records identified during this process were then reviewed by a panel of urogynecology attendings and fellows to select patients who were truly clinical outliers. By this method we identified 10 patients (cases) who experienced early overt surgical failure. We also randomly selected 40 controls from our research database which includes greater than 500 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy during the same time period and had been objectively and subjectively assessed for ≥ 12 months with surgical success at ≥ 12 months that did not undergo prolapse re-operation or re-treatment. Demographics and peri-operative details were compared between cases and controls. Exclusion criteria for controls included use of other graft material besides polypropylene mesh, prior surgery for prolapse involving graft material, and conversion to laparotomy. DNA from the 10 cases and 40 controls was isolated from buccal swabs and genotyped on a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array that contains 250,000 markers (NspI 250K SNP array, Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). All women in this study identified as Caucasian. All subjects provided written informed consent to study participation and data release. This was a case-control study approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Atlantic Health System in Morristown New Jersey (R11-10-004).
2016-06-01 | GSE63236 | GEO
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) POP is defined as the protrusion of pelvic organs from the vaginal canal. POP often coexists with internal rectal prolapse or external rectal prolapse (ERP). A series of patients with coexisting POP and ERP who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) combined with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) are reported here. METHODS:Seven patients underwent LVR and LSC together. Fecal incontinence was assessed by the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), constipation was assessed by the Constipation Scoring System (CSS), and urinary incontinence was assessed by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF). Anatomical disorders were assessed by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and defecography. RESULTS:The patients' median age was 81 (60-88) years. The median operative time was 380 (282-430) minutes. The median postoperative hospital stay was 3 (1-5) days. There were no postoperative complications. The FISI, CSS, POP-Q, and defecography findings improved postoperatively; however, the ICIQ-SF deteriorated in 2 of 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS:LVR combined with LSC for coexisting POP and ERP is feasible.
| S-EPMC6768687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMore than 225 000 surgeries are performed annually in the United States for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is considered the most durable POP surgery, but little is known about safety and long-term effectiveness.ObjectivesTo describe anatomic and symptomatic outcomes up to 7 years after abdominal sacrocolpopexy, and to determine whether these are affected by concomitant anti-incontinence surgery (Burch urethropexy).Design, setting, and participantsLong-term follow-up of the randomized, masked 2-year Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial of women with stress continence who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy between 2002 and 2005 for symptomatic POP and also received either concomitant Burch urethropexy or no urethropexy. Ninety-two percent (215/233) of eligible 2-year CARE trial completers were enrolled in the extended CARE study; and 181 (84%) and 126 (59%) completed 5 and 7 years of follow-up, respectively. The median follow-up was 7 years.Main outcomes and measuresSymptomatic POP failure requiring retreatment or self-reported bulge; or anatomic POP failure requiring retreatment or Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification evaluation demonstrating descent of the vaginal apex below the upper third of the vagina, or anterior or posterior vaginal wall prolapse beyond the hymen. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with more than 1 symptom or interval treatment; or overall UI score of 3 or greater on the Incontinence Severity Index.ResultsBy year 7, the estimated probabilities of treatment failure (POP, SUI, UI) from parametric survival modeling for the urethropexy group and the no urethropexy group, respectively, were 0.27 and 0.22 for anatomic POP (treatment difference of 0.050; 95% CI, -0.161 to 0.271), 0.29 and 0.24 for symptomatic POP (treatment difference of 0.049; 95% CI, -0.060 to 0.162), 0.48 and 0.34 for composite POP (treatment difference of 0.134; 95% CI, -0.096 to 0.322), 0.62 and 0.77 for SUI (treatment difference of -0.153; 95% CI, -0.268 to 0.030), and 0.75 and 0.81 for overall UI (treatment difference of -0.064; 95% CI, -0.161 to 0.032). Mesh erosion probability at 7 years (estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method) was 10.5% (95% CI, 6.8% to 16.1%).Conclusions and relevanceDuring 7 years of follow-up, abdominal sacrocolpopexy failure rates increased in both groups. Urethropexy prevented SUI longer than no urethropexy. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy effectiveness should be balanced with long-term risks of mesh or suture erosion.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00099372.
| S-EPMC3747840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy are widely used for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) treatment. Evidence comparing outcomes and costs is lacking. We compared costs and clinically relevant outcomes in women randomized to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy.Participants with symptomatic stage POP II or greater, including significant apical support loss, were randomized to either laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. We compared surgical costs (including costs for robot, initial hospitalization) and rehospitalization within 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, POP quantification, symptom severity and quality of life, and adverse events.We randomized 78 women (mean age 59 years): laparoscopic (n=38) and robotic (n=40). The robotic sacrocolpopexy group had higher initial hospital costs ($19,616 compared with $11,573, P<.001) and over 6 weeks, hospital costs remained higher for robotic sacrocolpopexy ($20,898 compared with $12,170, P<.001). When we excluded costs of robot purchase and maintenance, we did not detect a statistical difference in initial day of surgery costs of robotic compared with laparoscopic ($12,586 compared with $11,573; P=.160) or hospital costs over 6 weeks ($13,867 compared with $12,170; P=.060). The robotic group had longer operating room times (202.8 minutes compared with 178.4 minutes, P=.030) and higher pain scores 1 week after surgery (3.5±2.1 compared with 2.6±2.2; P=.044). There were no group differences in symptom bother by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, POP stage, or rate of adverse events.Costs of robotic sacrocolpopexy are higher than laparoscopic, whereas short-term outcomes and complications are similar. Primary cost differences resulted from robot maintenance and purchase costs.Clinicaltrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01124916.I.
| S-EPMC4266590 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sacrocolpopexy has been dubbed the âgold standardâ repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study sought to determine a genetic cause for sacrocolpopexy failure by comparing genotypes from 10 women who suffered from early POP reoccurance after sacrocolpopexy surgery, versus 40 randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure. We objectively defined early overt failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as having a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system examination (POP-Q) of stage III or IV occurring in more than one compartment within six months after surgery. All medical records identified during this process were then reviewed by a panel of urogynecology attendings and fellows to select patients who were truly clinical outliers. By this method we identified 10 patients (cases) who experienced early overt surgical failure. We also randomly selected 40 controls from our research database which includes greater than 500 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy during the same time period and had been objectively and subjectively assessed for ⥠12 months with surgical success at ⥠12 months that did not undergo prolapse re-operation or re-treatment. Demographics and peri-operative details were compared between cases and controls. Exclusion criteria for controls included use of other graft material besides polypropylene mesh, prior surgery for prolapse involving graft material, and conversion to laparotomy. DNA from the 10 cases and 40 controls was isolated from buccal swabs and genotyped on a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array that contains 250,000 markers (NspI 250K SNP array, Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). All women in this study identified as Caucasian. All subjects provided written informed consent to study participation and data release. This was a case-control study approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Atlantic Health System in Morristown New Jersey (R11-10-004). This case-control study compared single genotypes of 10 cases to 40 controls. All subjects were identified as Caucasian. Cases were women who experienced early overt POP recurrence after robotic sacrocolpopexy, and controls were randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure.
2016-06-01 | E-GEOD-63236 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:IntroductionWe developed a novel fellow education pathway for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and aimed to compare step-specific and total operative times for RASC performed by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) attendings with those in which FPMRS fellows performed part or all of the RASC. We further aimed to compare complication and readmission rates by fellow involvement.MethodsWe tracked RASC at 1 institution between 2012 and 2018. We recorded times for total procedure, sacrocolpopexy, and 6 individual steps. Fellows were designated F1-F3 by training year. We used independent samples t-tests and analysis of variance for continuous variables and χ2 and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.ResultsOf 178 RASC procedures, 76 (42.7%) involved fellows. Concomitant procedures included hysterectomy (62.4%), midurethral sling (50%), and colporrhaphy/perineorrhaphy (51.7%). RASC without and with fellows had similar demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics, except for midurethral sling rate (attending, 42.2% vs fellow, 60.5%; p = 0.02). RASC without and with fellows had similar times for total procedure (208.9 ± 61.0 vs 209.1 ± 48.6 minutes, p = 0.98), sacrocolpopexy (116.9 ± 39.9 vs 122.7 ± 29.2 minutes, p = 0.27), and all RASC steps except docking (attendings, 9.9 ± 8.6 vs fellows, 7.2 ± 7.0 minutes; p = 0.03). Complication rates and severity were similar without and with fellows. There were no readmissions.Discussion/conclusionOur novel structured training program provides safe limitations for total and step-specific procedural times during fellowship education in RASC. Such training programs warrant further study to determine potential contribution to quality and safety in the teaching environment.
| S-EPMC8817941 | biostudies-literature