Date: 30 Jun 2011
Robotics for Pelvic Reconstruction
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Robotic-assisted laparoscopy is increasingly used in female pelvic reconstructive surgery to combine the benefits of abdominally placed mesh for prolapse outcomes with the quicker recovery time associated with minimally invasive procedures. Level III data suggest that early outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy are similar to those of open sacrocolpopexy. A single randomized trial has provided level I evidence that robotic and laparoscopic approaches to sacrocolpopexy have similar short-term anatomic outcomes, although operating times, postoperative pain, and cost are increased with robotics. Patient satisfaction and long-term outcomes of both robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy are insufficiently studied despite their widespread use in the treatment of prolapse. Given the high reoperative rates for prolapse repairs, long-term follow-up is essential, and well-designed comparative effectiveness research is needed to evaluate pelvic floor surgery adequately.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obset Gynecol. 2001;184(7):1496–501. discussion 1501–3.CrossRef
• Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2010;(4):004014. This 2010 systematic Cochrane review provides levels of evidence for most current practice regarding options for surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. It should help guide reconstructive surgeons when they are selecting treatments.
Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1996;175(6):1418–21. discussion 1421–2.CrossRef
Lo TS, Wang AC. Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison. J Gyn Surg. 1998;14(2):59–64.CrossRef
Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;5:192(5):1752–8.
Nygaard I, Chai TC, Cundiff GW, DeLancey JO, FitzGerald MP, Heit M, et al. Summary of research recommendatiosn from the Inaugural American Urogynecologic Society Research Summit. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):4–7.CrossRef
Pham T, Kenton K, Mueller E, Brubaker L. New pelvic symptoms are common after reconstructive pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(1):88.e1–5.CrossRef
Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Chapple C, et al. Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam. 2010;29(1):213–40.CrossRef
Bump R, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Klarskov P, Smith ARB, Brubaker L, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obset Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.CrossRef
Paraiso M, Chen C, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Barber MD. Conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16(5):S58.
Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 12;199(6):688.e1-688.e5.
Bensinger G, Lind L, Guess M, Winkler HA. Abdominal sacral suspensions: analysis of complications using permanent mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(6):2094–8.CrossRef
• Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Havrilevsky LJ, Wu JM. Cost analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4)493–9. This thorough decision analysis compared cost data among robotic, laparoscopic, and open sacrocolpopexies using two models. Both demonstrated that robotic sacrocolpopexy is associated with higher costs than the other routes of surgery.
Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connoly A, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRef
Schimpf MO, Wagner JR. Robot-assisted laparoscopic distal ureteral surgery. JSLS. 2009;13(1):44–9.PubMed
- Robotics for Pelvic Reconstruction
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports
Volume 6, Issue 3 , pp 176-181
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Current Science Inc.
- Additional Links
- Robotic surgery
- Pelvic reconstruction
- Pelvic organ prolapse
- Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery
- Pelvic floor disorders
- Minimally invasive gynecology
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 South First Avenue, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA
- 2. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Urology, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 South First Avenue, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA