Literature DB >> 24846152

The challenge of implementing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Jan Deprest1, Ladislav Krofta, Frank Van der Aa, Alfredo L Milani, Jan Den Boon, Filip Claerhout, Jan-Paul Roovers.   

Abstract

Vaginal-vault prolapse is effectively treated using sacrocolpopexy (SCP). A randomized trial demonstrated that it can be performed as effectively via laparoscopy (LSCP) as via laparotomy and with less morbidity. This evidence begs the question of how units offering abdominal sacrocolpopexy will implement LSCP. Several limitations need to be overcome. LSCP initially requires longer operating time; however, that decreases with surgeon experience. To decrease operation time, suture training can be implemented ahead. Following a 15-h suturing lab, trainees achieved comparable operation times after 30 cases. Dissection is another critical time-consuming step and is difficult to model. Proficiency is more dependent on patient characteristics, though this component is poorly studied. One experience showed it takes 60 procedures to effectively limit complications. The large number of patients required for surgeon training for this relative infrequent operation creates a problem, thus limiting the number of centers available for training surgeons within a reasonable period.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24846152     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2398-6

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


  32 in total

Review 1.  Statistical assessment of the learning curves of health technologies.

Authors:  C R Ramsay; A M Grant; S A Wallace; P H Garthwaite; A F Monk; I T Russell
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.014

2.  Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Geller; Brent A Parnell; Gena C Dunivan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  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

4.  Rate, type, and cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Germany, France, and England.

Authors:  Dhinagar Subramanian; Karine Szwarcensztein; Josephine A Mauskopf; Mark C Slack
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2009-05-02       Impact factor: 2.435

5.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal mesh for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Cheryl B Iglesia; Douglass S Hale; Vincent R Lucente
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Geller; Feng-Chang Lin; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 4.137

7.  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

Review 8.  Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for female genital organ prolapse: establishment of a learning curve.

Authors:  Cherif Y Akladios; Daphné Dautun; Christian Saussine; Jean Jaques Baldauf; Carole Mathelin; Arnaud Wattiez
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2010-01-21       Impact factor: 2.435

10.  The European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section (ERUS) survey of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Authors:  Vincenzo Ficarra; Peter N Wiklund; Charles Henry Rochat; Prokar Dasgupta; Benjamin J Challacombe; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Stefan Siemer; Nazareno Suardi; Giacomo Novara; Alexandre Mottrie
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  6 in total

1.  Long-term outcome after transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Pia Heinonen; Riikka Aaltonen; Kirsi Joronen; Seija Ala-Nissilä
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Choice of pelvic organ prolapse surgery: vaginal or abdominal, native tissue or synthetic grafts, open abdominal versus laparoscopic or robotic.

Authors:  Peter L Dwyer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Anique M J van Oudheusden; Ben Willem J Mol; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  Laparoscopic approach to pelvic organ prolapse - the way to go or a blind alley?

Authors:  Ewelina Malanowska; Marek Soltes; Andrzej Starczewski; Eckhard Petri; Marcin Jozwik
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 1.195

6.  Laparoscopic monolateral suspension for vaginal vault prolapse: a report of an exit surgical strategy during sacralcolpopexy.

Authors:  Federico Romano; Andrea Sartore; Denise Mordeglia; Giovanni Di Lorenzo; Guglielmo Stabile; Giuseppe Ricci
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 2.102

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.