Literature DB >> 27631421

Robotic and laparoendoscopic single-site utero-sacral ligament suspension for apical vaginal prolapse: evaluation of our technique and perioperative outcomes.

Hugo H Davila1,2,3,4, Taryn Gallo5, Lindsey Bruce5, Christopher Landrey6.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate our technique and steps of robotic and laparoendoscopic single-site utero-sacral ligament suspension in the treatment of patients with symptomatic apical vaginal prolapse. A retrospective analysis was done using the data in 2 community hospital. Eighteen women presented with vaginal apex prolapse and desired minimally invasive surgery (video): (a) Laparoendoscopic single-site utero-sacral ligament suspension (LESS-UTSLS) (n = 13) or (b) robotic-assisted single-site utero-sacral ligament suspension (RASS-UTSLS) (n = 5) were eligible to participate. All participants underwent a standardized evaluation, including a structured urogynecologic history and physical examination with pelvic organ prolapse quantitative stage. Participants also completed validated questionnaire about pain scale. Multiples perioperative values were obtained to evaluate our minimally invasive approach. There were no differences in demographic, pre-operative anatomic, and functional data between groups. Concomitant anti-incontinence surgery with trans-obturator tape among the LESS-UTSLS vs RASS-UTSLS groups was performed in 2 (15 %) compared with 0 (0 %) and vaginal hysterectomy 2 (15 %) compared with supracervical hysterectomy 2 (40 %), respectively. The UTSLS operating time was similar in the RASS group compared with the LESS group (difference 9 min. There were only one POP (8 %) recurrence (stage 3) and one umbilical hernia (8 %) in the LESS-UTSLS group after 12 months of surgery. Two patients (15 %) developed stress urinary incontinence after LESS-UTSLS. We presented our technique and perioperative outcomes. RASS-UTSLS was similar operative times to LESS UTSL (+9 min), no differences in post-operative pain, anatomic support, or complications 6 months. We found that robotic surgical systems may accelerate the learning curve in the single-site surgery. Future investigations are warranted to discern the best applications for robotic single site technology in benign gynecologic surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apical prolapsed; Pelvic floor; Robotic surgery; Single-site surgery; Vaginal prolapsed

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27631421     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-016-0638-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  21 in total

1.  Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Geller; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Jennifer M Wu; Anthony G Visco
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices.

Authors:  Venita Chandra; Deepika Nehra; Richard Parent; Russell Woo; Rosette Reyes; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Sanjeev Dutta
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2009-12-31       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  Laparoscopic colposuspension for total vaginal prolapse.

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

4.  Uterosacral ligament vault suspension: five-year outcomes.

Authors:  W Andre Silva; Rachel N Pauls; Jeffrey L Segal; Christopher M Rooney; Steven D Kleeman; Mickey M Karram
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  C H Nezhat; F Nezhat; C Nezhat
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 7.661

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.  Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Authors:  A L Olsen; V J Smith; J O Bergstrom; J C Colling; A L Clark
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Assessment of patient functional status after surgery.

Authors:  Martin McCarthy; Olga Jonasson; Chih-Hung Chang; A Simon Pickard; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; James Gibbs; Perry Edelman; Robert Fitzgibbons; Leigh Neumayer
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  A Comparison of Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted, Single-Site Laparoscopy Versus Laparoendoscopic Single Site for Benign Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Sandra Lopez; Zuber D Mulla; Loretta Hernandez; Devin M Garza; Thomas N Payne; Richard W Farnam
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 4.137

Review 10.  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

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Schachar; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.