Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy/sacrocervicopexy repair of pelvic organ prolapse: initial experience

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To present the short-term surgical outcomes of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and sacrocervicopexy.

Methods

Between January 2009 and September 2010, 12 patients underwent robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse repair including six sacrocolpopexy and six sacrocervicopexy. Patients’ demographics, surgical procedures, operative and postoperative complications, hospital stay, conversion to laparotomy, time data including all operative times and estimated blood loss (EBL) were recorded.

Results

All surgeries were completed robotically with no conversion to laparotomy. The average operative time for the robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASCP) was 150.5 ± 29.6 min (range 114–189) and the mean console time was calculated as 123.6 ± 34.2 min (range 84–166). The averages of the dissection and the suturation time were 34.8 ± 24.3 min (range 13–72) and 63.3 ± 21.8 min (range 28–95), respectively. The mean length of hospitalization was 2.8 ± 0.7 days (range 2–4) and the mean EBL was calculated as 12.5 ± 4.1 ml (range 10–20). There was one intraoperative complication. The mean age and body mass index of the patients underwent robotic-assisted sacrocervicopexy were 38.1 ± 6.5 years (29–47) and 28.4 ± 5.8 kg/m2 (18.6–34.4), respectively. The mean operating times were calculated as follows: set-up time was 25.6 ± 4.0 min, docking time was 3 ± 0.8 min, dissection time was 28.6±7.7 min, suturation time was 70.8 ± 10.9 min and console time was 123.1 ± 23.6 min. There were no recurrences during the follow-up period (12 months) in both groups of the patients.

Conclusion

The use of the robotic system during pelvic organ prolapse repair is feasible, safe and may support the surgeon during dissection and suturing at the level of sacral promontory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V et al (1999) True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med 44:679–684

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Reddy K, Malik TG (2002) Short-term and long-term follow-up of abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: initial experience in a district general hospital. J Obstet Gynaecol 22:532–536

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Elliott DS, Frank I, Dimarco DS, Chow GK (2004) Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Surg 188:52S–56S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ross JW, Preston MR (2009) Update on laparoscopic, robotic, and minimally invasive vaginal surgery for pelvic floor repair. Minerva Ginecol 61:173–186

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergsrom JO et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I et al (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse in the women’s health initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:1160–1166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nezhat C, Lavie O, Lemyre M, Unal E, Nezhat CH, Nezhat F (2009) Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: scientific dream or reality? Fertil Steril 91:2620–2622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Visco AG, Advincula AP (2008) Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 112:1369–1384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2005) Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 19:1200–1203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, Magtibay PM (2009) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 23:2390–2394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112:1201–1206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Daneshgari F, Kefer JC, Moore C, Kaouk J (2007) Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolapse (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int 100:875–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK (2006) Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolpase. J Urol 176:655–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT et al (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 63:373–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kramer BA, Whelan CM, Powell TM et al (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as management for pelvic organ prolapse. J Endourol 23:655–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Göçmen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Göçmen, A., Şanlıkan, F. & Uçar, M.G. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy/sacrocervicopexy repair of pelvic organ prolapse: initial experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 683–688 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2032-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2032-5

Keywords

Navigation