Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of institutional experience on robotic sacrocolpopexy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To evaluate the institutional learning curve for robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) at three different institutions. This is an ancillary study of data collected for a multicenter retrospective review on complications of sacrocolpopexy. Outcomes of RSC were collected at three health networks from January 2007 to December 2010. We collected baseline patient characteristics as well as surgical data. Anatomical failure was defined as prolapse at or below the hymen. Novice cases were the first 25 cases at each institution and experienced cases were the last 25 during the study period. Two hundred and twenty-two RSC were performed during the study period. Patient demographic data was similar between groups. There was a significant difference in operative time when comparing the novice group to the experienced group (362 vs. 311 min, p < 0.01). There was statistically significant decrease in the mean operative time between the novice and experienced groups at both WHC and CHH (362 vs. 271, p < 0.01 and 331 vs. 261, p < 0.01) but not at Penn (389 vs. 404, p = 0.26). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to individual or composite complications (12.0 vs. 4.0 %, p = 0.12), anatomic failures (10.0 vs. 5.6 %, p = 0.68) and repeat surgery for prolapse (5.3 vs. 2.7 %, p = 0.7). Operative time decreases by nearly 1 h at institutions performing >80 cases with no change in rate of complications, anatomic failures, and repeat surgeries.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly AM, Cundiff G, Weber AM et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104:805–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S (2008) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn 27:3–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C (2005) Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1752–1758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Klauschie JL, Souzzi BA, O’Brien MM, McBride AW (2009) A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:273–279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network et al (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114:600–609

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118(5):1005–1013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreaden U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):589–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK (2006) Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 176(2):655–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moreno Sierra J, Ortiz Oshiro E, Fernandez Pérez C, Galante Romo I, Corral Rosillo J, Prieto Nogal S, Castillon Vela IT, Silmi Moyano A, Alvarez Fernandez-Represa J (2011) Long-term outcomes after robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: prospective analysis. Urol Int 86(4):414–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The study was funded by a Grant from the Graduate Medical Education department at Georgetown/Medstar Washington Hospital Center.

Conflict of interest

Nosti, Patrick A MD, Andy, Uduak MD, Desale, Sameer, Gutman, Robert E, Harvie, Heidi S, MD, MBA, MS, and Lowenstein, Lior MD, MS, declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FPMRS Division, Ob/Gyn Department, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, 106 Irving Street, NW Suite 405, Washington, DC, 20010, USA

    Patrick A. Nosti & Robert E. Gutman

  2. FPMRS Division, Ob/Gyn Department, University of Pennyslvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Uduak Andy & Heidi S. Harvie

  3. Medstar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA

    Sameer Desale & Lior Lowenstein

  4. FPMRS Division, Ob/Gyn Department, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel

    Patrick A. Nosti, Uduak Andy, Sameer Desale, Robert E. Gutman, Heidi S. Harvie & Lior Lowenstein

Authors
  1. Patrick A. Nosti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Uduak Andy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sameer Desale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert E. Gutman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Heidi S. Harvie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lior Lowenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick A. Nosti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nosti, P.A., Andy, U., Desale, S. et al. The impact of institutional experience on robotic sacrocolpopexy. J Robotic Surg 8, 343–347 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0477-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0477-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation