Literature DB >> 27180224

Cosmetic Appearance of Port-site Scars 1 Year After Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Supplementary Study of the ACCESS Clinical Trial.

Elizabeth Rose Mueller1, Kimberly Kenton2, Jennifer T Anger3, Catherine Bresee4, Christopher Tarnay5.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively measure trocar site appearances 1 year after surgery in women participants in the Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies Trial, a 2-center randomized surgical trial (NCT01124916).
DESIGN: Supplementary analysis of a surgical trial that randomized women to robotic or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (Canadian Task Force classification I).
SETTING: Operative trial. PATIENTS: Women undergoing clinically indicated sacrocolpopexy for symptomatic stage ≥II pelvic organ prolapse were randomized to laparoscopic abdominal sacrocolpopexy (LASC) or robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy (RASC). Trocar skin incision closure was standardized by using Dermabond (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Photographs of all incision sites were taken at baseline (immediately), 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. Study coordinators scored each incision with the validated Stony Brook Evaluation Scale (SBES), a 5-point wound evaluation scale. We calculated the average of all scars scores per case to determine the percent of optimal wound healing (0%-100%) for each case as well as the proportion of cases meeting 100% wound repair scoring. Wound repair scores across groups were tested with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The overall proportion of cases in each group meeting "optimal" wound recovery (scores of 100%) was tested with the Fisher exact test. Seventy-eight women with a mean age of 59 years (range, 26-79 years) were randomized to LASC (n = 38) or RASC (n = 40). We did not detect significant differences in baseline characteristics or rates of dropout between the 2 study groups (5 in LASC and 7 in RASC, p = .60). Pain in the initial postoperative period was higher in the robotic arm although groups were similar at 2 weeks. Nearly all cases (75/78) contributed wound repair data (36 laparoscopic and 39 robotic). Laparoscopic surgeries require significantly fewer incisions (median = 4; range, 4-6) than robotic surgeries (median = 5; range, 4-6; p < .001). SBES scores at 6 weeks were not different for LASC and RASC (p = .426). By 6 months, the scores were better in the LASC group (84.8% ± 8.8% vs 78.5% ± 7.2%, p = .031), and this finding remained at 1 year (93.4% ± 7.2% vs 85.9% ± 8.8%, p = .001). The proportion of cases with optimal wound repair (score of 100%) was higher in the laparoscopic arm at 1 year after surgery (12/27 vs 4/33, p = .008).
INTERVENTIONS: Women were randomized to robotic assisted laparoscopy or laparoscopy.
CONCLUSION: Wound appearance using the SBES was better in the LASC group, suggesting that there may be alterations in the mechanism for wound initiation and/or healing based on the minimally invasive route used for sacrocolpopexy.
Copyright © 2016 AAGL. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic; Prolapse; Robotic; Sacrocolpopexy; Scar; Wound healing

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27180224      PMCID: PMC5007204          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2016.05.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale.

Authors:  Adam J Singer; Blavantray Arora; Alexander Dagum; Sharon Valentine; Judd E Hollander
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A Necessary Pretense.

Authors:  Chad E Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

4.  A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: is smaller better?

Authors:  M Bignell; M P N Lewis; E C K Cheong; M Rhodes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and post-operative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report.

Authors:  Giovannalberto Pini; Ali Serdar Goezen; Michael Schulze; Marcel Hruza; Jan Klein; Jens Jochen Rassweiler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Marie Fidela R Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek; Anna Frick; Chi Chung Grace Chen; Matthew D Barber
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jennifer T Anger; Elizabeth R Mueller; Christopher Tarnay; Bridget Smith; Kevin Stroupe; Amy Rosenman; Linda Brubaker; Catherine Bresee; Kimberly Kenton
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 7.661

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.  Women's preference of cosmetic results after gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  Kathryn Goebel; Jeffrey M Goldberg
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 10.  Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review.

Authors:  Piyush Durani; D A McGrouther; M W J Ferguson
Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg       Date:  2009-03-20       Impact factor: 2.740

  10 in total
  5 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

2.  Two-port robotic hysterectomy: a novel approach.

Authors:  Gaby N Moawad; Paul Tyan; Elias D Abi Khalil
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2018-03-24

3.  Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology.

Authors:  Theresa A Lawrie; Hongqian Liu; DongHao Lu; Therese Dowswell; Huan Song; Lei Wang; Gang Shi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-04-15

Review 4.  Surgical Updates in the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Authors:  Julia Geynisman-Tan; Kimberly Kenton
Journal:  Rambam Maimonides Med J       Date:  2017-04-28

5.  Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jiang Yang; Yong He; Xiaoyi Zhang; Zhi Wang; Xiaohu Zuo; Likun Gao; Li Hong
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.