Literature DB >> 23797528

Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women.

Barbara L Robinson1, Brent A Parnell, Jennifer T Sandbulte, Elizabeth J Geller, AnnaMarie Connolly, Catherine A Matthews.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare perioperative complications after robotic surgery (RS) versus vaginal surgery (VS) for apical prolapse repair in elderly women. The secondary objectives were to (1) assess whether tools designed to predict surgical morbidity, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), are useful in the elderly urogynecologic population and (2) to classify complications during urogynecologic apical procedures using the Dindo classification system.
METHODS: We reviewed medical records of women 65 years or older who underwent RS or VS between March 2006 and April 2011. Procedures included robotic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocervicopexy, vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament suspension, colpocleisis, and Uphold vaginal mesh placement. We assessed preoperative risks using ASA and CCI classification and complications using Dindo grade.
RESULTS: There were 136 eligible cases (RS, 70; and VS, 66) during the 5-year study period. Women who underwent RS were younger (70 vs 74 years; P < 0.001). Vaginal surgery had more severe comorbidities as measured by the CCI (P = 0.012) but similar ASA profiles (P = 0.10). Robotic surgery had longer operative times (P < 0.001) but a lower estimated blood loss (P < 0.001). There were fewer postoperative complications in RS (P = 0.005). However, complication severity based on Dindo grade was similar between RS and VS, with most surgeries having no complications.
CONCLUSIONS: In the elderly women, RS was associated with fewer postoperative complications than VS. Overall, all procedures were associated with few complications, and either route may be reasonable in the elderly population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23797528     DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318299a66c

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


  9 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  Sacrocolpopexy: Surgical Technique, Outcomes, and Complications.

Authors:  Elizabeth B Takacs; Karl J Kreder
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  The effect of age on complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral colpopexy.

Authors:  L C Turner; K Kantartzis; J L Lowder; J P Shepherd
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Obliterative Versus Reconstructive Prolapse Repair for Women Older than 70: Is There an Optimal Approach?

Authors:  Sybil G Dessie; Alex Shapiro; Miriam J Haviland; Michele R Hacker; Eman A Elkadry
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2017 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 2.091

5.  Trends and Factors Influencing Inpatient Prolapse Surgical Costs and Length of Stay in the United States.

Authors:  Tatiana V D Sanses; Nicholas K Schiltz; Holly E Richter; Siran M Koroukian
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.091

Review 6.  Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Schachar; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04

Review 7.  Management of pelvic organ prolapse in the elderly - is there a role for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy?

Authors:  Hadley Narins; Teresa L Danforth
Journal:  Robot Surg       Date:  2016-10-17

8.  Reporting and grading of complications after mid-urethral sling surgeries: Could the "Clavien-Dindo Classification" be adopted?

Authors:  Ahmed S El-Hefnawy; Bassem S Wadie
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2021-05-20

9.  Robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Teresa L Danforth; Monish Aron; David A Ginsberg
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-07
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.