Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Several technical alternatives to repair mesh using laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy exist. We aim to describe the outcomes and surgical technique of robotic-assisted colpo-/cervicosacropexy using a standardized suturing scheme to repair the mesh.
Methods
We retrospectively reported data of 60 consecutive cases of robotic-assisted colpo-/cervicosacropexy for advanced multicompartmental prolapse using a standardized suturing design. We placed three non-absorbable stitches on the cervix or three absorbable stitches on the apex of the vaginal vault, six long-term absorbable stitches on the anterior vaginal wall deep to the basis of the vesical trigone, six similar posterior stitches with the deeper row of sutures down to the levator ani plane and three non-absorbable stitches on the sacral promontory as the cranial support for Y-shaped polypropylene mesh.
Results
Median operative time was 188 ± 43 min. All the procedures were successfully performed using a Da Vinci Si platform in a three-arm configuration, and no conversion to open or traditional laparoscopic surgery was needed. The length of hospital stay was 1.2 ± 1.7 days, and no readmission within 30 postoperative days was reported. At a follow-up of 12 and 24 months, no case of extrusion or exposure of the mesh occurred, and the retreatment rate was 6.7%.
Conclusions
Our suturing technique is safe and effective, with negligible risk of complications and good medium-term results. It is plausible that robotic systems may facilitate precise, accurate and reproducible placement of the stitches, thereby favoring wider diffusion of minimally invasive treatment of advanced prolapse.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5.
Maher CF, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016.
Serati M, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053.
Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.064.
Rosenblum N. Robotic approaches to prolapse surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e328354809c.
Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):43–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.08.774.
Souders C, et al. Robotic sacrocolpopexy: adverse events reported to the FDA over the last decade. Int Urogynecol J. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3845-6.
Ercoli A, et al. Anatomical insights into sacrocolpopexy for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22806.
Clavien PA, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.
O’Sullivan OE, Matthews CA, O’Reilly BA. Sacrocolpopexy: is there a consistent surgical technique? Int Urogynecol J. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2880-9.
Wattiez A, Mashiach R, Donoso M. Laparoscopic repair of vaginal vault prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001703-200308000-00004.
Gadonneix P, Ercoli A, Scambia G, Villet R. The use of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2005.
Tan-Kim J, et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2566-8.
Romeo A, et al. What is the best surgeon’s knot? Evaluation of the security of the different laparoscopic knot combinations. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2018.01.032.
Kondo W, et al. Different blocking sequences performed by laparoscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.10.032, https://doi.org/10.1097/01.gco.0000175355.48802.7b.
Stefanidis D, Wang F, Korndorffer JR, Dunne JB, Scott DJ. Robotic assistance improves intracorporeal suturing performance and safety in the operating room while decreasing operator workload. Surg Endosc. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-009-0578-0.
Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Scott DJ. Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1512-1.
Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231537c.
Akl MN, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0311-4.
Linder BJ, et al. Assessing the learning curve of robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2816-4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A Giannini: Data Collection, Manuscript writing.
E Russo: Project development, Data Collection, Revision of the manuscript.
G Misasi: Project development, Data collection.
M Falcone: Project development, Data collection.
M Caretto: Data collection, Manuscript writing.
R Morganti: Data elaboration, Statistical analysis.
P Mannella: Project development, Surgeon.
T Simoncini: Project development, Surgeon, Supervisor, Revision of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giannini, A., Russo, E., Misasi, G. et al. Technical features, perioperative and anatomical outcomes of a standardized suturing pattern for robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 33, 3085–3092 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-05049-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-05049-6