Jiheum Paek1, Maria Lee2, Bo Wook Kim3, Yongil Kwon4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University School of Medicine, 150 Sung-an ro, Kangdong-gu, Seoul, 134-701, Korea. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University School of Medicine, 150 Sung-an ro, Kangdong-gu, Seoul, 134-701, Korea. kyiobgy63@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (RLSH) and open sacrohysteropexy (OSH) as a surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: Among 111 consecutive patients who had undergone sacrohysteropexy for POP, surgical outcomes and postoperative symptoms were compared between the RLSH (n = 54; robotic 14 cases and laparoscopic 40 cases) and OSH (n = 57). groups The medical records of enrolled patients were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Compared with the OSH group, the RLSH group had shorter operating time (120.2 vs 187.5 min, p < 0.0001), less operative bleeding (median estimated blood loss 50 vs 150 ml; p < 0.0001; mean hemoglobin drop 1.4 vs 2.0 g/dl; p < 0.0001), and fewer postoperative symptoms (13 vs 45.6 %; p < 0.0001). Patients' overall satisfaction (94.4 vs 91.2 %; p = 0.717) and required reoperation due to postoperative complications (3.7 vs 1.8 %; p = 0.611) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: RLSH could be a feasible and safe procedure in patients with POP and should be considered as a surgical option that allows preservation of the uterus. Prospective randomized trials will permit the evaluation of potential benefits of RLSH as a minimally invasive surgical approach.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (RLSH) and open sacrohysteropexy (OSH) as a surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: Among 111 consecutive patients who had undergone sacrohysteropexy for POP, surgical outcomes and postoperative symptoms were compared between the RLSH (n = 54; robotic 14 cases and laparoscopic 40 cases) and OSH (n = 57). groups The medical records of enrolled patients were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: Compared with the OSH group, the RLSH group had shorter operating time (120.2 vs 187.5 min, p < 0.0001), less operative bleeding (median estimated blood loss 50 vs 150 ml; p < 0.0001; mean hemoglobin drop 1.4 vs 2.0 g/dl; p < 0.0001), and fewer postoperative symptoms (13 vs 45.6 %; p < 0.0001). Patients' overall satisfaction (94.4 vs 91.2 %; p = 0.717) and required reoperation due to postoperative complications (3.7 vs 1.8 %; p = 0.611) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS:RLSH could be a feasible and safe procedure in patients with POP and should be considered as a surgical option that allows preservation of the uterus. Prospective randomized trials will permit the evaluation of potential benefits of RLSH as a minimally invasive surgical approach.
Entities:
Keywords:
Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy; Pelvic organ prolapse; Robotic
Authors: Nazema Y Siddiqui; Cara L Grimes; Elizabeth R Casiano; Husam T Abed; Peter C Jeppson; Cedric K Olivera; Tatiana V Sanses; Adam C Steinberg; Mary M South; Ethan M Balk; Vivian W Sung Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nicole B Korbly; Nadine C Kassis; Meadow M Good; Monica L Richardson; Nicole M Book; Sallis Yip; Docile Saguan; Carey Gross; Janelle Evans; Vrishali V Lopes; Heidi S Harvie; Vivian W Sung Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Mèlanie N van IJsselmuiden; Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Marlies Bongers; Geerte van de Pol; Astrid Vollebregt; Celine M Radder; Jan Deprest; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Ha Na Yoo; Tae Joong Kim; Yoo Young Lee; Chel Hun Choi; Jeong Won Lee; Duk Soo Bae; Byoung Gie Kim Journal: J Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.401
Authors: Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 2.894