Literature DB >> 35974180

Single-center study for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacropexies: a one-fits-all strategy for pelvic organ prolapse?

Pawel Mach1, Cara Kaufold2, Peter Rusch2, Rainer Kimmig2, Paul Buderath2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Sarcopenia has been established as the "gold standard" for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Minimal invasive laparoscopy can help to reduce the risks of open access surgery. We compare the surgical results and outcomes of robotic-assisted sacropexies.
METHODS: In this monocentric retrospective study we enrolled 49 patients operated on symptomatic POP. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of robotic-assisted sacropexy: patients with a history of hysterectomy received robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSCP; n = 19), while patients with subtotal hysterectomy received robotic-assisted cervicosacropexy (RCSP; n = 30). Failure was defined as recurrence of the disease with a need for reoperation. Validated questionnaires (the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7)), were used for evaluation of patients quality of life postoperatively.
RESULTS: The comparison between RCSP versus RSCP showed that the latter is related to slightly but not significantly increased recurrence rates and a higher impact of POP symptoms on quality of life in long-term follow-up (p = 0.04). Perioperative data showed similar complication rates in both RSP types but shorter postoperative time of bladder catheterization in the case of RCSP (p = 0.008).
CONCLUSIONS: The monocentric long-term data confirm that RSP is a safe and effective method of surgical POP treatment, regardless of the site of the anatomical compartment. In comparison to RSCP, RCSP is associated with a lower impact of POP symptoms on patients' quality of life with a tendency to slightly lower rates of POP recurrence.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervicosacropexy; POP; Robotic-assisted surgery; Sacrocolpopexy

Year:  2022        PMID: 35974180     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06735-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.493


  26 in total

1.  Surgical management of apical pelvic support defects: the impact of robotic technology.

Authors:  Ashley W Carroll; Elizabeth Lamb; Audra Jo Hill; Edward J Gill; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  A longitudinal study of patient and surgeon goal achievement 2 years after surgery following pelvic floor dysfunction surgery.

Authors:  S Srikrishna; D Robinson; L Cardozo
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  Long-Term Assessment of a Prospective Cohort of Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Stefaan Pacquée; Katika Nawapun; Filip Claerhout; Erika Werbrouck; Joan Veldman; André Dʼhoore; Jan Wyndaele; Jasper Verguts; Dirk De Ridder; Jan Deprest
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Laparoscopic pectopexy: a new technique of prolapse surgery for obese patients.

Authors:  Carolin Banerjee; Karl Günter Noé
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 2.344

5.  Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 6.  The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review.

Authors:  Anjali M Ganatra; François Rozet; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; Marc Galiano; Xavier Cathelineau; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2009-02-04       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery?

Authors:  John P Lenihan; Carol Kovanda; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.137

8.  A National Contemporary Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes of Open versus Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Brian J Linder; John A Occhino; Elizabeth B Habermann; Amy E Glasgow; Katherine A Bews; Boris Gershman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-04-07       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy With a Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Junyan Wang; Xiaojuan Wang; Keqin Hua; Yisong Chen
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2019-06-30       Impact factor: 2.835

10.  Laparoscopic pectopexy: initial experience of single center with a new technique for apical prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Ahmet Kale; Alper Biler; Hasan Terzi; Taner Usta; Ebru Kale
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2017 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.541

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.