Abstract
This chapter focuses on the development and evolution of utilizing robotic technology in the management of vaginal prolapse. Robotic assistance for gynecologic surgery has exponentially risen in the last decade, and urogynecologic procedures have implemented this use successfully. This offers benefits to the patient, transitioning from open to minimally invasive procedures, bypassing some of the technical difficulties that are encountered with traditional laparoscopic surgery. Appropriate use, implementation, and improving efficiency will be discussed along with technical aspects of surgery for correction of vaginal and uterovaginal prolapse. Finally, associated procedures along with management of complications will also be discussed.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Olsen AL, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.
Mc CM. Posterior culdeplasty; surgical correction of enterocele during vaginal hysterectomy; a preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol. 1957;10(6):595–602.
Randall CL, Nichols DH. Surgical treatment of vaginal inversion. Obstet Gynecol. 1971;38(3):327–32.
Arthure HG. Vault-suspension. Proc R Soc Med. 1949;42(6):388–90.
Lane FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–7.
Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(5):885–8.
Cosson M, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, hysterectomy, and burch colposuspension: feasibility and short-term complications of 77 procedures. JSLS. 2002;6(2):115–9.
Akl MN, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(10):2390–4.
Swift S, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):795–806.
Gutman RE, et al. Is there a pelvic organ prolapse threshold that predicts pelvic floor symptoms? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):683.e1–7.
Heit M, et al. Is pelvic organ prolapse a cause of pelvic or low back pain? Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(1):23–8.
Bump RC, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.
Baden WF, Walker TA, Lindsey JH. The vaginal profile. Tex Med. 1968;64(5):56–8.
Jelovsek JE, et al. A model for predicting the risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):279–87.
Long JB, et al. Open laparoscopic access technique: review of 2010 patients. JSLS. 2008;12(4):372–5.
Wieslander CK, et al. Vascular anatomy of the presacral space in unembalmed female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1736–41.
Propst K, et al. Pyogenic spondylodiscitis associated with sacral colpopexy and rectopexy: report of two cases and evaluation of the literature. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):21–31.
Serati M, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):303–18.
Paraiso MF, et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13.
Anger JT, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.
Cosson M, et al. Mechanical properties of synthetic implants used in the repair of prolapse and urinary incontinence in women: which is the ideal material? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(3):169–78. Discussion 178.
FitzGerald MP, Edwards SR, Fenner D. Medium-term follow-up on use of freeze-dried, irradiated donor fascia for sacrocolpopexy and sling procedures. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004;15(4):238–42.
Jallah Z, et al. The impact of prolapse mesh on vaginal smooth muscle structure and function. BJOG. 2016;123(7):1076–85.
Tan-Kim J, et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):649–56.
Linder BJ, et al. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy using only absorbable suture for mesh fixation. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(1):13–6.
Unger CA, et al. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):547.e1–8.
Mueller MG, Jacobs KM, Mueller ER, Abernethy MG, Kenton KS. Outcomes in 450 women after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(4):267–71.
FDA. UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: FDA safety communication. 13 July 2011; 2011.
FDA. FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. 2008.
Nygaard IE, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.
Nygaard I, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yi, J. (2018). Robotic Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse. In: El-Ghobashy, A., Ind, T., Persson, J., Magrina, J. (eds) Textbook of Gynecologic Robotic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63429-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63429-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63428-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63429-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)