Literature DB >> 22543767

Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.

Danielle D Antosh1, Stephanie A Grotzke, Marcela A McDonald, David Shveiky, Amy J Park, Robert E Gutman, Andrew I Sokol.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare operative times and short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a convenience sample was performed comparing patients who underwent robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy during a 4-year period. Operative time, blood loss, perioperative complications, and objective cure of prolapse at 3 months were compared.
RESULTS: Robotic procedures in 65 women and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy procedures in 23 women were performed. Median preoperative prolapse was stage 3 for both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the median operative time between the robotic and laparoscopic groups, although this did not include robot setup time and did include concurrent procedures that differed significantly between groups (334 vs 325 minutes, P = 0.30). Estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group (50 vs 100 mL, P = 0.003). Median hospital stay was 1 day in both groups (P = 0.23). There were no differences in overall objective cure rates between robotic and laparoscopic groups at 3 months of follow-up (87.1% vs 91.3%, P = 0.72). Perioperative complications, including visceral injury and mesh erosion, did not differ significantly between these groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy had similar operative times, short-term anatomic cure rates, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22543767     DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824b218d

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 2151-8378            Impact factor:   2.091


  11 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Ke Pan; Lili Cao; Nicholas A Ryan; Yanzhou Wang; Huicheng Xu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Kamran P Sajadi; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 4.  Robotic sacrocolpopexy: how does it compare with other prolapse repair techniques?

Authors:  Brian J Linder; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Introduction of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy to a fellowship training program.

Authors:  Kelly Kantartzis; Gary Sutkin; Dan Winger; Li Wang; Jonathan Shepherd
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Adoption of robotic sacrocolpopexy at an academic institution.

Authors:  Megan S Bradley; Kelly L Kantartzis; Jerry L Lowder; Dan Winger; Li Wang; Jonathan P Shepherd
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.172

7.  Does menopausal status impact urinary continence outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy without anti-incontinence procedures in continent women?

Authors:  Abdurrahman Hamdi Inan; Emrah Toz; Emrah Beyan; Tutku Gurbuz; Aykut Ozcan; Oznur Oner
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.088

8.  The assessment of quality of life and satisfaction with life of patients before and after surgery of an isolated apical defect using synthetic materials.

Authors:  Maciej Zalewski; Gabriela Kołodyńska; Anna Mucha; Łukasz Bełza; Krzysztof Nowak; Waldemar Andrzejewski
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2020-07-20       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 9.  Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review.

Authors:  Geertje Callewaert; Jan Bosteels; Susanne Housmans; Jasper Verguts; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Frank Van der Aa; Dirk De Ridder; Ignace Vergote; Jan Deprest
Journal:  Gynecol Surg       Date:  2016-01-26

10.  Robotic-Assisted Radical Hysterectomy Results in Better Surgical Outcomes Compared With the Traditional Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy for the Treatment of Cervical Cancer.

Authors:  Ji-Chan Nie; An-Qi Yan; Xi-Shi Liu
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 3.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.