Literature DB >> 24631406

Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

Maurizio Serati1, Giorgio Bogani2, Paola Sorice2, Andrea Braga2, Marco Torella3, Stefano Salvatore4, Stefano Uccella2, Antonella Cromi2, Fabio Ghezzi2.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Surgery represents the mainstay of treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Among different surgical procedures, abdominal sacrocolpopexy (SC) is the gold standard for apical or multicompartmental POP. Research has recently focused on the role of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC).
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review on the outcomes of RASC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases as well as ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for English-language literature on RASC. A total of 509 articles were screened; 50 (10%) were selected, and 27 (5%) were included. Studies were evaluated per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system and the European Association of Urology guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, data on 1488 RASCs were collected from 27 studies, published from 2006 to 2013. Objective and subjective cures ranged from 84% to 100% and from 92% to 95%, respectively. Conversion rate to open surgery was <1% (range: 0-5%). Intraoperative, severe postoperative complications, and mesh erosion rates were 3% (range: 0-19%), 2% (range: 0-8%), and 2% (range: 0-8%), respectively. Surgical-related outcomes have improved with increased experience, with an estimated learning curve of about 10-20 procedures. Laparoscopic SC is less costly than RASC, although the latter has lower costs than abdominal SC.
CONCLUSIONS: RASC is a safe and feasible procedure for POP; it allows the execution of complex surgical steps via minimally invasive surgery without medium- and long-term anatomic detriments. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We looked at the outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy for prolapse. We found that the use of robotic technology is safe and effective for the treatment of prolapse in women.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apical prolapse; Pelvic organ prolapse (POP); Robotic; Sacral colpopexy; Sacrocolpopexy

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24631406     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  38 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

Review 2.  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

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

4.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: operative times and efficiency in a high-volume female pelvic medicine and laparoscopic surgery practice.

Authors:  Robert Moore; Christopher Moriarty; Orawee Chinthakanan; John Miklos
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Jiheum Paek; Maria Lee; Bo Wook Kim; Yongil Kwon
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Da Vinci robot emergency undocking protocol.

Authors:  O E O'Sullivan; S O'Sullivan; M Hewitt; B A O'Reilly
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-04-28

Review 7.  Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: How to Avoid Short- and Long-Term Complications.

Authors:  Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Midterm results of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Carolin Eva Hach; Joschka Krude; Andre Reitz; Michael Reiter; Axel Haferkamp; Stephan Buse
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  A live porcine model for robotic sacrocolpopexy training.

Authors:  Khushabu Kasabwala; Ramy Goueli; Patrick J Culligan
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-05-04       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Surgical trends and patient factors associated with the treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse from a national sample.

Authors:  Emily A Slopnick; Andrey Petrikovets; David Sheyn; Simon P Kim; Carvell T Nguyen; Adonis K Hijaz
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.