Literature DB >> 21979458

Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

Marie Fidela R Paraiso1, J Eric Jelovsek, Anna Frick, Chi Chung Grace Chen, Matthew D Barber.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare conventional laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal apex prolapse.
METHODS: This single-center, blinded randomized trial included participants with stage 2-4 posthysterectomy vaginal prolapse. Participants were randomized to laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy. The primary outcome was total operative time from incision to closure. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, functional activity, bowel and bladder symptoms, quality of life, anatomic vaginal support, and cost from a health care system perspective.
RESULTS: A total of 78 patients enrolled and were randomized (laparoscopic n=38; robotic n=40). Total operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group compared with the laparoscopic group (+67-minute difference; 95% confidence interval [CI] 43-89; P<.001). Anesthesia time, total time in the operating room, total sacrocolpopexy time, and total suturing time were all significantly longer in the robotic group. Participants in the robotic group also had significantly higher pain at rest and with activity during weeks 3 through 5 after surgery and required longer use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (median, 20 compared with 11 days, P<.005). The robotic group incurred greater cost than the laparoscopic group (mean difference +$1,936; 95% CI $417-$3,454; P=.008). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in vaginal support and functional outcomes 1 year after surgery with no differences between groups.
CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy results in longer operating time and increased pain and cost compared with the conventional laparoscopic approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21979458     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231537c

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  93 in total

1.  Surgery: laparoscopic promontofixation is safe and effective for POP.

Authors:  Tiffany Jackson; Arnold P Advincula
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  [Sacrocolpopexy - pro laparoscopic].

Authors:  M Hatzinger; M Sohn
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  [Sacropolpopexy - pro robotic].

Authors:  C Hampel; C Thomas; J W Thüroff; F Roos
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  Robot-assisted surgery:--impact on gynaecological and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  O E O'Sullivan; B A O'Reilly
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies (ACCESS).

Authors:  E R Mueller; K Kenton; C Tarnay; L Brubaker; A Rosenman; B Smith; K Stroupe; C Bresee; A Pantuck; P Schulam; J T Anger
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-05-27       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 6.  Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Review 7.  Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh.

Authors:  Natalie Gaines; Priyanka Gupta; Larry T Sirls
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 8.  Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Alexandriah N Alas; Jennifer T Anger
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Robotic Sacrocolpopexy-Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse?

Authors:  Janine L Oliver; Ja-Hong Kim
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  Central compartment and apical defect repair using synthetic mesh.

Authors:  Karen Soules; J Christian Winters; Christopher J Chermansky
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.