Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current Controversies in Robotic Prolapse Repair

  • Stress Incontinence and Prolapse (R Dmochowski, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to update the debate on the impact of robotic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse with recent literature. Review of this subject will continue the analysis of the expansion of robotic surgery and its impact on the value and quality of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Up until recently, this area of study was dominated by retrospective data with conflicting evidence. The quality of literature on the subject has improved in the past 5 years. Randomized control trials have started reporting results that are more consistent between studies. Additionally, high-quality patient data from a Nationwide Inpatient Sample database has been available since introduction of the robotic modifier code for robotic surgery in 2008. Meta-analyses examining the differences amongst studies will also be discussed. This article will review the literature and examine the debate on the impact of robotic surgery on cost, patient safety, outcomes, and training.

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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Elliot, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. The American Journal of Surgery 188 Oct. 2004

  2. Journal of Healthcare Management 46L4 July/August 2003, intuitive surgical annual report 2012.

  3. Li H, Sammon J, Roghmann F, Sood A, Ehlert M, Sun M, et al. Quoc-Dien utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapsed. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(3-4):100–6. This study compiled expansive population data and demographics for RSC in the United States.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Barbash GI, Glied S. New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:701–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12. This is the most recent RCT in RSC vs LSC powered to compare cost.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gyneco. 2011;118(5):1005–13. This was the first RCT done comparing RSC to LSC.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hoyte L, Rabbanifard R, Mezzich J, Bassaly R, Downes K. Cost analysis of open versus robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(6):335–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):44–9. PubMed: 22453672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost minimization analysis of robot-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, cost and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:44–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DeGouveia M, Leica SC, Whitlow B, Artahona M. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2015. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2763-0.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, Uccella S, Cromi A, Ghezzi F Robotic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. European Urology March 2014 303-318

  12. Unger CA, Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Ridgeway B. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:547. e1-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Linder B, Chow G, Elliot D. Long term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Urology. 2015. doi:10.1111/iju.12900.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Osmundsen BC, Clark A, Goldsmith C, Adams K, Denman MA, Edwards R, et al. Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:86–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Mar. 2014;20(5):252–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):43–8. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2012.08.774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shariati A, Maceda JS, Hale DS. Da Vinci assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: surgical technique on a cohort of 77 patients. J Pelvic Med Surg. 2008;14:163–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny DA. Review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1128–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, et al. Robot assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2900–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hach CE, Krude J, Reitz A, Reiter M, Hafekamp A, Buse S. Mid-term results of robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol. 2015;26:1321–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ploumidis A, Spinoit AF, De Naeyer G, Shatteman P, Gan M, Ficarra V, Volpe A, Mottrie A Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and outcomes at a single high-volume institution. Eur Urol 65(1):138–145

  22. Lenihan Jr JP, Kovanda C, Seshari-kreaden U. What is the learning-curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):589–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Pelvic floor function before and after robotic sacrocolpopexy: one year outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(3):322–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bradley MS, Kantartzis KL, Lowder JL, Winger D, Wang L, Shepherd JP Adoption of robotic sacrocolpopexy at an academic instituition Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons July-Sept 2014 18(3)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Boston University School of Medicine, 725 Albany St. #3B, Boston, MA, 02118, USA

    Linda Ng & Sean W. Nealy

Authors
  1. Linda Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sean W. Nealy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Linda Ng or Sean W. Nealy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Ng and Dr. Nealy declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Stress Incontinence and Prolapse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ng, L., Nealy, S.W. Current Controversies in Robotic Prolapse Repair. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 11, 61–65 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-016-0350-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-016-0350-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation