Ke Pan1, Yao Zhang2, Yanzhou Wang1, Yunle Wang3, Huicheng Xu4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. 2. Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive Medicine, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China; Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology Center, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. 3. School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China. Electronic address: huichengxu123@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) has spread rapidly without the availability of comprehensive and systematically recorded outcome data. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and RALSC. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and Scopus were searched for reports published from 2000 to 2014, using the search terms "robotic sacrocolpopexy," "laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy," and "sacral colpopexy." SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they directly compared the outcomes of RALSC and LSC, the sample size in each group was more than 15, the follow-up duration was longer than 3 months, and the report was in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The studies' characteristics, quality, and outcomes were recorded. Random-/fixed-effects models were used to combine data. MAIN RESULTS: Data on 264 RALSC and 267 LSC procedures were collected from seven studies. The mean operative time was longer in the RALSC group (245.9 minutes vs 205.9 minutes; P<0.001). The estimated blood loss in the two groups was similar (114.4 mL vs 160.1 mL; P=0.36). The differences in incidence of intraoperative/postoperative complications were also similar (P=0.85 vs P=0.92). The costs of RALSC were significantly higher than were those of LSC series in each of three studies (P<0.01 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes of prolapse surgery are similar with RALSC and LSC, but RALSC is less efficient in terms of cost and time.
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSC) has spread rapidly without the availability of comprehensive and systematically recorded outcome data. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and RALSC. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and Scopus were searched for reports published from 2000 to 2014, using the search terms "robotic sacrocolpopexy," "laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy," and "sacral colpopexy." SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they directly compared the outcomes of RALSC and LSC, the sample size in each group was more than 15, the follow-up duration was longer than 3 months, and the report was in English. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The studies' characteristics, quality, and outcomes were recorded. Random-/fixed-effects models were used to combine data. MAIN RESULTS: Data on 264 RALSC and 267 LSC procedures were collected from seven studies. The mean operative time was longer in the RALSC group (245.9 minutes vs 205.9 minutes; P<0.001). The estimated blood loss in the two groups was similar (114.4 mL vs 160.1 mL; P=0.36). The differences in incidence of intraoperative/postoperative complications were also similar (P=0.85 vs P=0.92). The costs of RALSC were significantly higher than were those of LSC series in each of three studies (P<0.01 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes of prolapse surgery are similar with RALSC and LSC, but RALSC is less efficient in terms of cost and time.
Authors: Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; John W Lumley; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Giuseppe Campagna; Luigi Pedone Anchora; Giovanni Panico; Daniela Caramazza; Martina Arcieri; Mauro Cervigni; Giovanni Scambia; Alfredo Ercoli Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 2.894