OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare short-term functional outcomes achieved by laparoscopic or robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical and operative data over 24 months for female patients who underwent either pure laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) or robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP). Clinical data included age, BMI and assessment of PFDI-20 score. Perioperative data included operative time and complications. Post-operative outcomes included hospital stay, length of catheterisation, pain and functional outcomes as assessed by clinical examination and PFDI-20 score assessment. RESULTS: Overall, 67 women with a median age of 65 were included: 47 in the LSCP arm and 20 in the RALSCP arm. RALSCP was superior in terms of blood loss (median 55mls vs. 280; P = 0.03) and strict operative time (median 125 min vs. 220; P < 0.0001), but this time advantage was nullified when comparing overall operating room time (215 min vs. 220). With a median follow-up of 16 months, the overall anatomic repair rate was 98.5%, and there was an improvement in overall PFDI-20 score before and after surgery (P = 0.001) but with no difference between the two surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: RALSCP allows for a safe and effective repair of pelvic organ prolapse in female patients. Whilst being equivalent to LSCP in terms of functional outcome, it is superior in terms of blood loss and strict operative time. These results are based on short-term assessment, and further studies of larger populations with longer follow-up and objective assessments of outcome are needed to make any definitive statement.
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare short-term functional outcomes achieved by laparoscopic or robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected clinical and operative data over 24 months for female patients who underwent either pure laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) or robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP). Clinical data included age, BMI and assessment of PFDI-20 score. Perioperative data included operative time and complications. Post-operative outcomes included hospital stay, length of catheterisation, pain and functional outcomes as assessed by clinical examination and PFDI-20 score assessment. RESULTS: Overall, 67 women with a median age of 65 were included: 47 in the LSCP arm and 20 in the RALSCP arm. RALSCP was superior in terms of blood loss (median 55mls vs. 280; P = 0.03) and strict operative time (median 125 min vs. 220; P < 0.0001), but this time advantage was nullified when comparing overall operating room time (215 min vs. 220). With a median follow-up of 16 months, the overall anatomic repair rate was 98.5%, and there was an improvement in overall PFDI-20 score before and after surgery (P = 0.001) but with no difference between the two surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: RALSCP allows for a safe and effective repair of pelvic organ prolapse in female patients. Whilst being equivalent to LSCP in terms of functional outcome, it is superior in terms of blood loss and strict operative time. These results are based on short-term assessment, and further studies of larger populations with longer follow-up and objective assessments of outcome are needed to make any definitive statement.
Authors: Fernando P Secin; Caroline Savage; Claude Abbou; Alexandre de La Taille; Laurent Salomon; Jens Rassweiler; Marcel Hruza; François Rozet; Xavier Cathelineau; Gunther Janetschek; Faissal Nassar; Ingolf Turk; Alex J Vanni; Inderbir S Gill; Philippe Koenig; Jihad H Kaouk; Luis Martinez Pineiro; Vito Pansadoro; Paolo Emiliozzi; Anders Bjartell; Thomas Jiborn; Christopher Eden; Andrew J Richards; Roland Van Velthoven; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Robert Rabenalt; Li-Ming Su; Christian P Pavlovich; Adam W Levinson; Karim A Touijer; Andrew Vickers; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Kevin C Zorn; Marcelo A Orvieto; Edward M Gong; Albert A Mikhail; Ofer N Gofrit; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav Journal: J Endourol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Patrick J Culligan; Miles Murphy; Linda Blackwell; Grant Hammons; Carol Graham; Michael H Heit Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Maribel De Gouveia De Sa; Leica Sarah Claydon; Barry Whitlow; Maria Angelica Dolcet Artahona Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Catherine O Hudson; Gina M Northington; Robert H Lyles; Deborah R Karp Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091