Long-term outcomes after totally robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy

This review aimed to summarize the complications and surgical outcomes of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Nineteen original articles on 1,440 robotic sacrocolpopexies were reviewed, and three systematic reviews and meta-analyses were summarized in terms of intraoperative, perioperative, postoperative, and/or surgical outcomes. Robotic sacrocolpopexy has demonstrated low overall complication rates and favorable surgical outcomes. Nevertheless, long-term follow-up outcomes regarding objective and/or subjective prolapse recurrence, reoperation rates, and mesh-related complications remain unclear. Further research is required to demonstrate whether the robotic approach for sacrocolpopexy is feasible or can become the modality of choice in the future when performing sacrocolpopexy.

Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Single Center Experience in China

Objective. The aim is to investigate the efficiency and outcome of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) in a cohort of patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in our Gynecology Department. Methods. We performed a retrospective study of female patients who underwent RASC in Chinese PLA General Hospital from January 2013 to December 2020. Their clinical features included age, degree of prolapse, menopause time, body mass index, pregnancy, delivery, operation time, and bleeding volume. All patients were followed up for more than 6 months. POP-Q was recorded to evaluate the position of prolapsed organs. PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, and PGI-I were used to evaluate the life quality after surgery. Results. Twenty-four patients with POP received RASC in our center. The intraoperative bleeding was 86.9 ± 98.3 ml (20–300 ml). The operation time was 143.5 ± 47.3 min (60–240 minutes). The hospitalization time was 10.4 ± 2.1 days (8–16 days). And the follow-up time was 40.8 ± 22.0 months (6–72 months). In the POP-Q follow-up, postoperative Aa, Ba, Ap, Bp, and C were significantly improved than those before surgery ( $P<0.05$ ). The objective and subjective cure rate was 100%. PGI-I score was very good in 9 (9/24), very good in 10 (10/24), and good in 3 (3/24). Postoperative PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 were 2.78 ± 3.82 and 1.57 ± 3.86, which decreased dramatically after surgery ( $P<0.05$ ). Mesh exposure occurred in 4 cases (16.7%) at 2–12 months. The exposed diameters were less than 1 cm in 3 cases (2 A/T3/S1) and 1-2 cm in 1 case (3 B/T3/S1). These mesh exposures healed after conservative observation or mesh excision. Conclusion. RASC for POP has the advantage of less bleeding and hospitalization time. It is a minimally invasive option for pelvic organ prolapse.

Single-port versus multi-port robotic sacrocervicopexy: Establishment of a learning curve and short-term outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the learning curves, surgical outcomes and complications of multi-port access robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy (MP-RSC) to single-port robotic access (SP-RSC) for vaginal apex prolapse.

METHODS

A retrospective study of the first 52 MP-RSC procedures compared with the first 52 SP-RSC procedures performed at one medical center. Primary outcomes were intraoperative bleeding, operative time, and hospitalization. Secondary outcomes were surgical complications.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in mean operative times between the MP-RSC and SP-RSC procedures: 206.5 ± 39.4 and 187.8 ± 46.2, respectively, P = 0.028. The mean estimated intraoperative blood loss was 35 [20-87.5] ml and 20 [10-47.5] ml, respectively, P = 0.008. Respective mean operative times decreased from the first 15 to the subsequent 15 cases: in the MP-RSC group from 224.2 ± 43.2 to 198.4 ± 36.3 min, P = 0.088, and in the SP-RSC group from 222.4 ± 53.1 to 161.3 ± 28.2 min, P < 0.001. The subsequent 22 cases showed different trends. Hospitalization (days) and level of pain at 24 h postoperative, according to a 1-10 point visual analogue scale, did not differ. Adverse events were rare in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MP-RSC and SP-RSC are feasible and the short term outcomes and learning curves for both procedures are comparable.

Role of robotic surgery on pelvic floor reconstruction

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) abdominal surgery has increasingly been used to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Besides the several advantages associated with minimal invasiveness, this approach bridged the gap between the benefits of vaginal surgery and the surgical success rates of open abdominal procedures. The most commonly performed procedure for suspension of the vaginal apex for postoperative vaginal prolapse by robotic-assisted laparoscopy is the sacrocolpopexy. Conventional laparoscopic application of this procedure was first reported in 1994 by Nezhat et al. and had not gained widespread adoption due to lengthy learning curve associated with laparoscopic suturing. Since FDA approval of the da Vinci® robot for gynecologic surgery in 2005, minimally invasive abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse has become increasingly popular, as robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is an option for those surgeons without experience or training in the conventional route. Robotic surgery has made its way into the armamentarium of POP treatment and has allowed pelvic surgeons to adapt the "gold standard" technique of abdominal sacrocolpopexy to a minimally invasive approach with improved intraoperative morbidity and decreased convalescence. In fact, repair of pelvic organ prolapse can be performed robotically, and sometimes surgeons can feel suturing and dissection during the procedures less challenging with the assistance of the robot. However, even if robotic surgery may confer many benefits over conventional laparoscopy, these advantages should continue to be weighed against the cost of the technology. To date, as long-term outcomes, evidence about robotic sacrocolpopexy for a repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not conclusive, and much more investigations are needed to evaluate subjective and objective outcomes, perioperative and postoperative adverse events, and costs associated with these procedures. It is plausible to think that the main advantage is that robotics may lead to a widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in the field of pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The following review will address the development and current state of robotic assistance in treating pelvic floor reconstruction discussing available data about the techniques of robotic prolapse repair as well as morbidity, costs and clinical outcomes.

Urinary Tract Injury at Benign Gynecologic Surgery and the Role of Cystoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To calculate the rates of urinary tract injury detected during and after benign gynecologic surgery. To explore the role of routine intraoperative cystoscopy and determine if it helps in reducing injuries detected postoperatively.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a literature search for urinary tract injuries at benign gynecologic surgery in PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science from January 2004 to August 2014. We combined our results with a database from a previously published systematic review to include earlier studies.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

A total of 79 studies met our inclusion criteria. Excluded were letters to the editor, studies involving only selective cystoscopy in higher risk patients, case reports, and reports that included injuries resulting from obstetric or oncologic procedures.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Data from each report were classified according to type of surgery into vaginal hysterectomy, abdominal hysterectomy, laparoscopic hysterectomy, other (nonrobotic) gynecologic and urogynecologic surgery, robotic hysterectomy, and other robotic gynecologic and urogynecologic surgery. We determined the ureteric and bladder injury rates for each surgery type from studies in which routine intraoperative cystoscopy was performed and separately from studies in which it was not performed. Intraoperatively detected rates of ureteric and bladder injury were markedly higher with routine intraoperative cystoscopy. We obtained an adjusted ureteric injury rate of 0.3% and a bladder injury rate of 0.8%. The estimated postoperative ureteric injury detection rates per 1,000 surgeries were 1.6 without routine cystoscopy and 0.7 with routine cystoscopy. Postoperative bladder injury detection rates per 1,000 surgeries were 0.8 without routine cystoscopy and 1.0 with routine cystoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Although routine cystoscopy clearly increases the intraoperative detection rate of urinary tract injuries, this systematic review of 79 mostly retrospective studies shows that it does not appear to have much effect on the postoperative injury detection rate.

Long-term results of robotic sacral hysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse in China Single medical center

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-time clinical outcomes of robotic sacral hysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

Five women who underwent robotic sacral hysteropexy for the treatment for POP. Blood loss, operative time, length of stay, blood transfusion, pulmonary embolus, gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract injury, ileus, bowel obstruction, post-operative fever, and urinary retention were recorded for all patients.

RESULTS

All the operative procedures were successfully performed using the robotic approach. In one case with perineal laceration, perineal repair was simultaneously performed, and in one patient with combined leiomyoma, myomectomy was performed first. The other three cases underwent no additional procedures during the surgery. Neither intra-nor post-operative complications occurred in all 5 cases. After follow-up one year, all patients declared their satisfaction with the achieved anatomical and functional results.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic sacral hysteropexy is a minimally invasive technique for POP repair. We found low complication rates and high patient satisfaction with a minimum of 1 year followup. Larger series with longer follow-up data are needed to justify its widespread use.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) has spread rapidly without the availability of comprehensive and systematically recorded outcome data.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and RALSC.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed and Scopus were searched for reports published from 2000 to 2014, using the search terms "robotic sacrocolpopexy," "laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy," and "sacral colpopexy."

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they directly compared the outcomes of RALSC and LSC, the sample size in each group was more than 15, the follow-up duration was longer than 3 months, and the report was in English.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The studies' characteristics, quality, and outcomes were recorded. Random-/fixed-effects models were used to combine data.

MAIN RESULTS

Data on 264 RALSC and 267 LSC procedures were collected from seven studies. The mean operative time was longer in the RALSC group (245.9 minutes vs 205.9 minutes; P<0.001). The estimated blood loss in the two groups was similar (114.4 mL vs 160.1 mL; P=0.36). The differences in incidence of intraoperative/postoperative complications were also similar (P=0.85 vs P=0.92). The costs of RALSC were significantly higher than were those of LSC series in each of three studies (P<0.01 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical outcomes of prolapse surgery are similar with RALSC and LSC, but RALSC is less efficient in terms of cost and time.

Long-term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term outcomes and potential predictors of treatment failure after robotic sacrocolpopexy.

METHODS

We identified 70 consecutive patients from 2002 to 2012 with symptomatic post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse that underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy. Multiple clinical and surgical variables were evaluated for potential association with treatment failure, which was defined as any repeat operation for recurrent prolapse or mesh-related complications.

RESULTS

The median age at surgery was 67 years (interquartile range 59-74 years) and median follow up was 72 months (interquartile range 39-114 months). Overall, six out of 70 patients (8.6%) underwent a total of six secondary surgeries, including four for recurrent prolapse (two anterior repairs, one posterior repair, one apical) and two mesh complications. No patient-related factors were associated with the risk of repeat surgery: age (P = 0.45), diabetes mellitus (P = 0.24), tobacco use (P = 0.61) or prior prolapse surgery (P = 0.1) on univariate analysis. Freedom from repeat prolapse surgery or surgery for mesh complication was 98% at 1 year, 95% at 3 years and 90% at 6 years. At last follow up, 80% of patients reported that they would or probably would recommend robotic sacrocolpopexy to a family member or friend.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic sacrocolpopexy is associated with excellent long-term outcomes. Recognition of long-term success is important for preoperative patient counseling.

Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery

Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has rapidly gained popularity over the past 10 years, owing to claims that it is associated with a reduced learning curve compared with standard laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and that it has equal efficacy to the gold-standard treatment, abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). The specifics of the surgical technique used for RSC vary widely, but the basic steps and principles are largely the same. Although complication rates are low, specific complications can be minimized by meticulous attention to surgical technique at several important points in the procedure. Multiple levels of evidence support the efficacy of RSC, and show that it is associated with a shorter hospital stay and convalescence than ASC. The learning curve for RSC usually comprises 10-20 procedures but for those with extensive experience of laparoscopy it is likely to be even shorter. RSC is more expensive than LSC but cheaper than ASC. As RSC has only been used for about a decade, we await long-term outcomes of more than a few years.

Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

Our first objective was to compare peri- and postoperative adverse events between robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) and conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) in a cohort of women who underwent these procedures at a tertiary care center. Our second objective was to explore whether hysterectomy and rectopexy at the time of sacrocolpopexy were associated with these adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent either RSC or LSC with or without concomitant hysterectomy and/or rectopexy from 2006-2012. Once patients were identified as either having undergone RSC or LSC, the electronic medical record was queried for demographic, peri-, and postoperative data.

RESULTS

Four hundred six women met study inclusion criteria. Mean age and body mass index of all the women were 58 ± 10 years and 27.9 ± 4.9 kg/m(2). The women who underwent RSC were older (60 ± 9 vs 57 ± 10 years, respectively; P = .009) and more likely to be postmenopausal (90.9% vs 79.1%, respectively; P = .05). RSC cases were associated with a higher intraoperative bladder injury rate (3.3% vs 0.4%, respectively; P = .04), a higher rate of estimated blood loss of ≥500 mL (2.5% vs 0, respectively; P = .01), and reoperation rate for pelvic organ prolapse (4.9% vs 1.1%, respectively; P = .02) compared with LSC. Concomitant rectopexy was associated with a higher risk of transfusion (2.8% vs 0.3%, respectively; P = .04), pelvic/abdominal abscess formation (11.1% vs 0.8%, respectively; P < .001), and osteomyelitis (5.6% vs 0, respectively; P < .001). The mesh erosion rate for all the women was 2.7% and was not statistically different between LSC and RSC and for patients who underwent concomitant hysterectomy and those who did not.

CONCLUSION

Peri- and postoperative outcomes after RSC and LSC are favorable, with few adverse outcomes. RSC is associated with a higher rate of bladder injury, estimated blood loss ≥500 mL, and reoperation for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse; otherwise, the rate of adverse events is similar between the 2 modalities. Concomitant rectopexy is associated with a higher rate of postoperative abscess and osteomyelitis complications.

Robotic sacrocolpopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse: a review of midterm surgical and quality of life outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Transabdominal sacrocolpopexy is a definitive treatment option for vaginal vault prolapse with durable success rates. The aim of our study was to review subjective and objective outcomes including complications after robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the repair of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

Single-site retrospective cohort study of women undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without concomitant robotic assisted supracervical hysterectomy was performed. Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 questionnaires were used preoperatively and postoperatively to evaluate patient subjective data, respectively. We established a strict improvement of greater than 70% on questionnaire's total score to determine clinical improvement.

RESULTS

Complications were assessed at 6 months and 127 women were included in our review. Mesh extrusion occurred in 3 (2.4%) patients. Other complications reported were bowel injury (2.4%), readmission rate (2.4%), wound infection (1.6%), and postoperative hernia at port site (1.6%). Objective and subjective outcomes were assessed at 1 year in 92 women. Although there was no recurrent apical prolapse at 1 year, anterior prolapse was present in 7 patients. Clinical improvement was present in 72% by Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 and in 68% by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20. Predictors of poor clinical outcomes were lysis of adhesions (OR, 5.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-27.4; P = 0.026), urethrolysis (OR, 11.91; 95% CI, 1.2-117.9; P = 0.034), current smoking (OR, 7.9; 95% CI, 1.1-58.7; P = 0.042), and older age (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.18; P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy represents a safe and effective surgical therapy to manage symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse. Serious complication rates are low but not rare when assessing short-term outcomes.

Robotic sacrocolpopexy

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a prevalent condition with 1 in 9 women seeking surgical treatment by the age of 80 years. Goals of treatment are relief and prevention of symptoms, and restoration of pelvic floor support. The gold standard for surgical treatment of POP has been abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). However, emerging technologies have allowed for more minimally invasive approach including the use of laparoscopic assisted sacrocolpopexy and robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC). We performed a PubMed literature search for sacrocolpopexy, “robotic sacrocolpopexy” and “RASC” and reviewed all retrospective, prospective and randomized controlled trials. The techniques, objective and subjective outcomes and complications are discussed. The most frequent technique involves a polypropylene Y mesh attached to the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina with the single arm attached to the sacrum. Multiple concomitant procedures have been described including hysterectomy, anti-incontinence procedures and concomitant vaginal prolapse repairs. There are few studies comparing RASC to ASC, with the longest follow-up data showing no difference in subjective and objective outcomes. Anatomic success rates have been reported at 79-100% with up to 9% of patients requiring successive surgery for recurrence. Subjective success is poorly defined, but has been reported at 88-97%. Most common complications are urinary retention, urinary tract infection, bladder injury and vaginal mucosal injury. Mesh exposure is reported in up to 10% of patients. RASC allows for a minimally invasive approach to treatment of POP with comparable outcomes and low complication rates.

Utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse

OBJECTIVES

Robot-assisted vaginal vault suspension (RAVVS) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) represents a minimally-invasive alternative to abdominal sacrocolpopexy. We measured perioperative outcomes and utilization rates of RAVVS.

METHODS

RAVVS (n = 2381) and open VVS (OVVS, n = 11080) data were extracted from the 2009-2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Propensity score-matched analysis compared patients undergoing RAVVS or OVVS for complications, mortality, prolonged length-of-stay, and elevated hospital charges.

RESULTS

Use of RAVVS for POP increased from 2009 to 2010 (16.3% to 19.2%). Patients undergoing RAVVS were more likely to be white (77.2% vs. 69.6%), to carry private insurance (52.8% vs. 46.0%) and to have fewer comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] ≥1 = 17.5% vs. 26.6%). They were more likely to undergo surgery at urban (98.2% vs. 93.7%) and academic centres (75.7% vs. 56.7%). Patients undergoing RAVVS were less likely to receive a blood-transfusion (0.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001) or experience prolonged length-of-stay (9.3% vs. 25.1%, p < 0.001). They had more intraoperative complications (6.0% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001), and higher median hospital charges ($32 402 vs. $24 136, p < 0.001). Overall postoperative complications were equivalent (17.9%, p = 1.0), though there were differences in wound (0.4% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001), genitourinary (4.9% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.009), and surgical (6.6% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.007) complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing use of RAVVS from 2009 to 2010 suggests a growth in the adoption of robotics to manage POP. We show that RAVVS is associated with decreased length of stay, fewer blood transfusions, as well as lower postoperative wound, genitourinary and vascular complications. The benefits of RAVVS are mitigated by higher hospital charges and higher rates of intra-operative complications.

Rectal prolapse: an overview of clinical features, diagnosis, and patient-specific management strategies

Rectal prolapse can present in a variety of forms and is associated with a range of symptoms including pain, incomplete evacuation, bloody and/or mucous rectal discharge, and fecal incontinence or constipation. Complete external rectal prolapse is characterized by a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus, which may be intermittent or may be incarcerated and poses a risk of strangulation. There are multiple surgical options to treat rectal prolapse, and thus care should be taken to understand each patient's symptoms, bowel habits, anatomy, and pre-operative expectations. Preoperative workup includes physical exam, colonoscopy, anoscopy, and, in some patients, anal manometry and defecography. With this information, a tailored surgical approach (abdominal versus perineal, minimally invasive versus open) and technique (posterior versus ventral rectopexy +/- sigmoidectomy, for example) can then be chosen. We propose an algorithm based on available outcomes data in the literature, an understanding of anorectal physiology, and expert opinion that can serve as a guide to determining the rectal prolapse operation that will achieve the best possible postoperative outcomes for individual patients.

Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

CONTEXT

Surgery represents the mainstay of treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Among different surgical procedures, abdominal sacrocolpopexy (SC) is the gold standard for apical or multicompartmental POP. Research has recently focused on the role of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC).

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review on the outcomes of RASC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases as well as ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for English-language literature on RASC. A total of 509 articles were screened; 50 (10%) were selected, and 27 (5%) were included. Studies were evaluated per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system and the European Association of Urology guidelines.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, data on 1488 RASCs were collected from 27 studies, published from 2006 to 2013. Objective and subjective cures ranged from 84% to 100% and from 92% to 95%, respectively. Conversion rate to open surgery was <1% (range: 0-5%). Intraoperative, severe postoperative complications, and mesh erosion rates were 3% (range: 0-19%), 2% (range: 0-8%), and 2% (range: 0-8%), respectively. Surgical-related outcomes have improved with increased experience, with an estimated learning curve of about 10-20 procedures. Laparoscopic SC is less costly than RASC, although the latter has lower costs than abdominal SC.

CONCLUSIONS

RASC is a safe and feasible procedure for POP; it allows the execution of complex surgical steps via minimally invasive surgery without medium- and long-term anatomic detriments. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at the outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy for prolapse. We found that the use of robotic technology is safe and effective for the treatment of prolapse in women.

A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse

CONTEXT

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) represents the superior treatment for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) but is associated with increased length of stay, analgesic requirement, and cost compared with transvaginal procedures. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC) may offer shorter postoperative recovery while maintaining equivalent rates of cure.

OBJECTIVE

This review evaluates the literature on LSC and RSC for clinical outcomes and complications.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed search of the available literature from 1966 to 2013 on LSC and RSC with a follow-up of at least 12 mo was performed. A total of 256 articles were screened, 69 articles selected, and outcomes from 26 presented. A review, not meta-analysis, was conducted due to the quality of the articles.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

LSC has become a mature technique with results from 11 patient series encompassing 1221 patients with a mean follow-up of 26 mo. Mean operative time was 124 min (range: 55-185) with a 3% (range: 0-11%) conversion rate. Objective cure was achieved in 91% of patients, with similar satisfaction rates (92%). Six patient series encompassing 363 patients treated with RSC with a mean follow-up of 28 mo have been reported. Mean operative time was 202 min (range: 161-288) with a 1% (range: 0-4%) conversion rate. Objective cure rate was 94%, with a 95% subjective success rate. Overall, early outcomes and complication rates for both LSC and RSC appeared comparable with open ASC.

CONCLUSIONS

LSC and RSC provide excellent short- to medium-term reconstructive outcomes for patients with POP. RSC is more expensive than LSC. Further studies are required to better understand the clinical performance of RSC versus LSC and confirm long-term efficacy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy represent attractive minimally invasive alternatives to abdominal sacrocolpopexy. They may offer reduced patient morbidity but are associated with higher costs.

Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and outcomes at a single high-volume institution

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) represents a common female pelvic floor disorder that has a serious impact on quality of life. Several types of procedures with different surgical approaches have been described to correct these defects, but the optimal management is still debated.

OBJECTIVE

To describe our surgical technique of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) for POP and to assess its safety and long-term outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective review of the medical records of 95 consecutive patients who underwent RASC for POP at our centre from April 2006 to December 2011 was performed.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

RASC with use of polypropylene meshes was performed in all cases using a standardised technique with the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in a four-arm configuration.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Clinical data were collected in a dedicated database. Intraoperative variables, postoperative complications, and outcomes of RASC were assessed. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Median operative time was 101 min. No conversion to open surgery was needed. One vaginal and two bladder injuries occurred and were repaired intraoperatively. Only one Clavien grade 3 postoperative complication was observed (bowel obstruction treated laparoscopically). At a median follow-up of 34 mo, persistent POP was observed in four cases (4.2%). One mesh erosion occurred and required robot-assisted removal of the mesh. Ten (10.5%) patients complained de novo urgency after RASC, which resolved in the first few weeks after surgery. No significant de novo bowel or sexual symptoms were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Our technique of RASC for correction of POP is safe and effective, with limited risk of complications and good long-term results in the treatment of all types of POP. The robotic surgical system facilitates precise and accurate placement of the meshes with short operative time, thereby favouring wider diffusion of minimally invasive treatment of POP.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We studied the treatment of patients with vaginal prolapse by using a robot-assisted surgical technique to fix the vaginal wall with a synthetic mesh. This technique was found to be safe and effective, with limited risk of complications and good long-term results.