Literature DB >> 24715099

Perioperative complications of robotic sacrocolpopexy for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse.

Mallika Anand1, Joshua L Woelk, Amy L Weaver, Emanuel C Trabuco, Christopher J Klingele, John B Gebhart.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Open abdominal sacrocolpopexy has been the preferred treatment for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. In light of the rise in popularity of less invasive robotic sacrocolpopexy, our objective was to compare perioperative complications of robotic vs open sacrocolpopexy.
METHODS: This was a single-institution, retrospective cohort study of robotic and open sacrocolpopexies. Robotic sacrocolpopexies performed between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2009 were compared with open cases performed between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2006. Baseline and intraoperative variables of the groups were compared. Complications were compared univariately and in a multivariable logistic regression model to adjust for prior transabdominal surgery.
RESULTS: A total of 50 robotic and 87 open sacrocolpopexies were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were similar, but patients in the open group had more prior transabdominal surgeries. The robotically assisted group had decreased estimated blood loss (median, 100 mL vs 150 mL; P = 0.002) and hospital stay (median, 2 days vs 3 days; P < 0.001), but increased operative time (median, 4.6 vs 2.9 h; P < 0.001), cystotomy (10.0 % [5 out of 50] vs 1.1 % [1 out of 87]; P = 0.02), and vaginotomy (24.0 % [12 out of 50] vs 5.7 % [5 out of 87]; P = 0.003). Two patients in the robotically assisted group had postoperative hernia. There were no differences in rates of ureteral or bowel injury, urinary tract infection, ileus, bowel obstruction, or overall complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall complication rates of robotic and open sacrocolpopexy were not significantly different. The robotically assisted group experienced shorter hospital stay but increased operative times and increased incidence of cystotomy and vaginotomy, possibly reflecting the learning curve of robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24715099     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2379-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  16 in total

1.  Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: establishment of a learning curve and short-term outcomes.

Authors:  Susana Mustafa; Amnon Amit; Shlomo Filmar; Michael Deutsch; Itamar Netzer; Joseph Itskovitz-Eldor; Lior Lowenstein
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 2.344

Review 2.  The role of robotic surgery in gynecology.

Authors:  Arnold P Advincula; Arleen Song
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.927

Review 3.  Robot-assisted techniques and outcomes in the realm of pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Brent A Parnell; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 2.190

4.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

5.  Laparoscopic colposuspension for total vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  A Ostrzenski
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 3.561

6.  Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve.

Authors:  Mohamed N Akl; Jaime B Long; Dobie L Giles; Jeffrey L Cornella; Paul D Pettit; Anita H Chen; Paul M Magtibay
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  David S Di Marco; George K Chow; Matthew T Gettman; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study.

Authors:  R M Freeman; K Pantazis; A Thomson; J Frappell; L Bombieri; P Moran; M Slack; P Scott; M Waterfield
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy.

Authors:  Joshua L Woelk; Elizabeth R Casiano; Amy L Weaver; Bobbie S Gostout; Emanuel C Trabuco; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?

Authors:  John P Lenihan; Carol Kovanda; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.137

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  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 2.  Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

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

3.  "Occult" pelvic abscess following previous robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Brian J Linder; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.