Tanya P Hoke1, Howard Goldstein2, Emily K Saks2, Babak Vakili2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware. Electronic address: tanyahokemd@gmail.com. 2. Center for Urogynecology and Pelvic Surgery, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgical outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy with and without paravaginal repair for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with a 3-month postoperative follow-up (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). SETTING: An academic-affiliated community hospital with a practice comprised of 3 surgeons board certified in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy for POP from April 2013 through November 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Robotic paravaginal repair (RPVR) after robotic sacrocolpopexy. The decision to perform a paravaginal repair was at the discretion of the surgeon. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six patients underwent a robotic sacrocolpopexy. Twenty-four patients were excluded because of a lack of a 3-month postoperative follow-up. Nine patients underwent concomitant vaginal paravaginal repair and were also excluded. Outcomes were defined by comparing preoperative characteristics with those at the 3-month follow-up. Of the 123 patients in this cohort, 21 patients underwent a concomitant RPVR, and 102 did not. All Pelvic Organ Prolapse Questionnaire (POP-Q) points improved within groups (p < .001) except for the total vaginal length (TVL) in the RPVR group (p = .940). The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) did not differ between groups (1.2 vs 1.5, p = .128). Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with preoperative anterior wall prolapse of stage 3 or greater. Baseline characteristics and perioperative data were not remarkably different from the main cohort. All POP-Q points improved within groups (p < .001) except for the TVL in the RPVR group (p = .572). The PGI-I did not differ between groups (1.2 vs 1.3, p = .378). CONCLUSION: In both groups, anatomic markers substantially improved within each group. There were significant differences in postoperative POP-Q findings, which may have been influenced by the fact that patients undergoing RPVR usually had worse baseline prolapse. This selection bias creates difficulty with interpretation. Although in this study RPVR did not change subjective outcomes, further study is necessary to control for the severity of prolapse.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate surgical outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy with and without paravaginal repair for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with a 3-month postoperative follow-up (Canadian Task Force classification II-3). SETTING: An academic-affiliated community hospital with a practice comprised of 3 surgeons board certified in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy for POP from April 2013 through November 2014. INTERVENTIONS: Robotic paravaginal repair (RPVR) after robotic sacrocolpopexy. The decision to perform a paravaginal repair was at the discretion of the surgeon. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six patients underwent a robotic sacrocolpopexy. Twenty-four patients were excluded because of a lack of a 3-month postoperative follow-up. Nine patients underwent concomitant vaginal paravaginal repair and were also excluded. Outcomes were defined by comparing preoperative characteristics with those at the 3-month follow-up. Of the 123 patients in this cohort, 21 patients underwent a concomitant RPVR, and 102 did not. All Pelvic Organ Prolapse Questionnaire (POP-Q) points improved within groups (p < .001) except for the total vaginal length (TVL) in the RPVR group (p = .940). The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) did not differ between groups (1.2 vs 1.5, p = .128). Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with preoperative anterior wall prolapse of stage 3 or greater. Baseline characteristics and perioperative data were not remarkably different from the main cohort. All POP-Q points improved within groups (p < .001) except for the TVL in the RPVR group (p = .572). The PGI-I did not differ between groups (1.2 vs 1.3, p = .378). CONCLUSION: In both groups, anatomic markers substantially improved within each group. There were significant differences in postoperative POP-Q findings, which may have been influenced by the fact that patients undergoing RPVR usually had worse baseline prolapse. This selection bias creates difficulty with interpretation. Although in this study RPVR did not change subjective outcomes, further study is necessary to control for the severity of prolapse.