Abdominal approaches to pelvic prolapse repairs

Single-Port Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: Description of an Advanced Minimally Invasive Approach and Review of the Relevant Literature

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard for the surgical management of apical prolapse. Over the years, surgical advancements have transformed the procedure from a laparotomy with a hospital stay of several days to a minimally invasive approach with a much shorter hospital stay. One recent innovation has the potential to transform minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.

METHODS

The da Vinci single-port robotic platform has allowed urological procedures to generate improved recovery, pain control, and cosmesis, with no differences in complications rates.

RESULTS

Although the data with respect to sacrocolpopexy are more limited owing to the novelty of this application, the results appear to be similar to those of urological procedures such as prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

We present our surgical technique for completing single-port robotic sacrocolpopexy, with and without a hysterectomy, as well as a review of the relevant literature.

Outcomes of vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomy with concomitant pelvic reconstructive surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Although vaginal hysterectomy(VH) is traditionally considered the safest route of hysterectomy, newer data suggest that laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) might have lower risks of perioperative complications in contemporary practice. Using a large surgical database, we aimed to assess the hypothesis that there are no significant differences in rates of major and minor complications between LH and VH when performed with pelvic reconstructive surgery, controlling for the number and type of pelvic reconstructive procedures.

METHODS

A total of 27,941 eligible LH and VH from the 2010-2018 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were identified. Concomitant pelvic reconstructive surgery was defined as either an apical suspension, enterocele repair, or colporrhaphy. Laparoscopy-assisted VH, gynecological malignancy, and concomitant nongynecological procedures were excluded. Complications within 30 days of surgery were grouped into major (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) or minor (grade 1-2) classifications. Bivariate analysis and inverse propensity-weighted logistic regression compared the outcomes of the VH and LH groups. Cochran-Armitage tests and multivariate regression assessed changes over time.

RESULTS

The majority of hysterectomies (72%) were vaginal, although its utilization declined from 89% in 2010 to 64% in 2018 (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis controlling for patient factors and the type and number of concomitant pelvic reconstructive procedures, LH was associated with a lower odds of major (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.711, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.639-0.791) and minor (aOR 0.659, 95% CI: 0.612-0.710) complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative safety profiles should be considered among other patient factors when counseling women undergoing surgical prolapse repair. Our findings suggest that laparoscopic approaches can be safely utilized among older and sicker patients traditionally counseled toward a vaginal approach.

Full-thickness vascularized vaginal flap as the fixation point in the surgical treatment of vaginal vault prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse is quite frequent and at the same time a challenging surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

One of the most popular methods of treatment is sacrospinous fixation, including its mesh modification.

RESULTS

Despite the high efficiency in the apical compartment, the incidence of the anterior compartment prolapse is quite high. Erosion remains an unsolved problem. A 44-year-old patient with grade IV post-hysterectomy prolapse underwent a sacrospinous fixation procedure with mesh according to the described technique. Surgery was performed successfully without complications. The duration of the operation was 40 min. A year after the operation, the recurrence of POP was not recorded in any compartments of the pelvic floor. It was possible to maintain the length of the vagina. Dyspareunia and vaginal erosion were not detected. The patient also noted a significant improvement in her quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The demonstrated approach allows performing minimally invasive reconstruction of all three compartments of the pelvic floor. Moreover, the use of a full-thickness vascularized vaginal flap allows safely fixing the mesh to the vaginal vault, minimizing the risk of erosion and pain syndrome due to excessive tension.

Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension combined with hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse

AIM

To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of a modified technique of laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension (LILS) with hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.

METHODS

A total of 57 patients were treated by LILS combined with hysterectomy between Jan 2014 and Feb 2016. The perioperative parameters, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay and intra- and postoperative complications were recorded. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse questionnaire classification was applied to evaluate the Pelvic Organ Prolapse stage, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale was used to determine the patients' satisfaction. Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire were used to evaluate the functional improvement. All data were collected preoperatively and then at 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean surgical time was 130.4 (82-190) min, the average blood loss was 50.4 (10-300) mL and the mean hospitalization was 5.3 (4-8) days. The rates of intra- and postoperative complications were low. After a minimal of 12 months follow-up, the anatomical success rate was 85.5%, and the subjective satisfaction rate was 92.7%. The functional measures also presented a significant improvement with no recurrence of prolapse.

CONCLUSION

LILS combined with hysterectomy was a safe and effective technique and might be considered as an alternative treatment for patients with uterovaginal prolapse.

Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case-control study

The apical prolapse has always been considered the most complex of the defects of the pelvic floor, for both the difficulty of the surgical corrective technique and for the high post-surgical recurrence rate. Today, the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy can be considered the standard treatment for apical prolapse. In the last years, several author performed robotic sacrocolpopexy, obtaining positive results. So, we developed a casecontrol study in order to compare the surgical outcome of robotic group with a control group of laparoscopic approach in patients with symptomatic apical pro-lapsed between January 2015 and December 2015 at University Hospital Policlinico "P. Giaccone" and Ospedali Riuniti "Villa Sofia-Cervello", Palermo. Our experience shows that robotic sacrocolpopexy can be considered in positive way for clinical results obtained: all procedures were executed with no complications, we noted a lower intraoperative blood loss and a shorter hospital stay than in laparoscopic group. Although the mean operative time and the economic costs are higher in robotic surgery, this study demonstrates that the use of robotic platform for repairing of symptomatic apical vaginal prolapse is feasible, safe and associated with short-term satisfactory results, representing therefore a valid alternative to laparoscopic approach.

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.

Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01124916.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.