A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
- PMID: 24433811
- DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.064
A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
Abstract
Context: Abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) represents the superior treatment for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) but is associated with increased length of stay, analgesic requirement, and cost compared with transvaginal procedures. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC) may offer shorter postoperative recovery while maintaining equivalent rates of cure.
Objective: This review evaluates the literature on LSC and RSC for clinical outcomes and complications.
Evidence acquisition: A PubMed search of the available literature from 1966 to 2013 on LSC and RSC with a follow-up of at least 12 mo was performed. A total of 256 articles were screened, 69 articles selected, and outcomes from 26 presented. A review, not meta-analysis, was conducted due to the quality of the articles.
Evidence synthesis: LSC has become a mature technique with results from 11 patient series encompassing 1221 patients with a mean follow-up of 26 mo. Mean operative time was 124 min (range: 55-185) with a 3% (range: 0-11%) conversion rate. Objective cure was achieved in 91% of patients, with similar satisfaction rates (92%). Six patient series encompassing 363 patients treated with RSC with a mean follow-up of 28 mo have been reported. Mean operative time was 202 min (range: 161-288) with a 1% (range: 0-4%) conversion rate. Objective cure rate was 94%, with a 95% subjective success rate. Overall, early outcomes and complication rates for both LSC and RSC appeared comparable with open ASC.
Conclusions: LSC and RSC provide excellent short- to medium-term reconstructive outcomes for patients with POP. RSC is more expensive than LSC. Further studies are required to better understand the clinical performance of RSC versus LSC and confirm long-term efficacy.
Patient summary: Laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy represent attractive minimally invasive alternatives to abdominal sacrocolpopexy. They may offer reduced patient morbidity but are associated with higher costs.
Keywords: Female; Genitalia; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive; Pelvic organ prolapse; Robotics; Sacrocolpopexy; Surgical procedures.
Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
On the way toward better evidence for minimally invasive treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.Eur Urol. 2014 Jun;65(6):1138-9. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.003. Epub 2014 Feb 11. Eur Urol. 2014. PMID: 24576501 No abstract available.
-
Re: A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.J Urol. 2015 Mar;193(3):944-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.12.081. Epub 2014 Dec 18. J Urol. 2015. PMID: 25765408 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review.Eur Urol. 2009 May;55(5):1089-103. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.048. Epub 2009 Feb 4. Eur Urol. 2009. PMID: 19201521 Review.
-
Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;211(5):547.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054. Epub 2014 Aug 1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014. PMID: 25088866
-
Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Eur Urol. 2014 Aug;66(2):303-18. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053. Epub 2014 Mar 6. Eur Urol. 2014. PMID: 24631406
-
Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and outcomes at a single high-volume institution.Eur Urol. 2014 Jan;65(1):138-45. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.054. Epub 2013 Jun 11. Eur Urol. 2014. PMID: 23806518
-
Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis.Int Urogynecol J. 2024 Nov;35(11):2203-2210. doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05942-w. Epub 2024 Oct 21. Int Urogynecol J. 2024. PMID: 39432077
Cited by
-
Iatrogenic endometriosis following apical pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a case report.J Med Case Rep. 2020 Jan 5;14(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13256-019-2327-x. J Med Case Rep. 2020. PMID: 31901247 Free PMC article.
-
Assessing the learning curve of robotic sacrocolpopexy.Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Feb;27(2):239-46. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2816-4. Epub 2015 Aug 21. Int Urogynecol J. 2016. PMID: 26294206
-
Improvement in Quality of Life after Laparoscopic or Robotic-assisted Sacrocolpopexy with a Single Anterior Mesh in Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis from a Single Institution.Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2024 Jul 18;13(3):168-173. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_19_23. eCollection 2024 Jul-Sep. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2024. PMID: 39184259 Free PMC article.
-
Comparing Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy With Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study Through the Fellows' Pelvic Research Network.Urogynecology (Phila). 2022 Oct 1;28(10):687-694. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001226. Epub 2022 Jul 9. Urogynecology (Phila). 2022. PMID: 35830589 Free PMC article.
-
A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Mar;305(3):641-649. doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06344-9. Epub 2021 Nov 29. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022. PMID: 34845538 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous