Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with autologous fascia lata: technique and initial outcomes
- 9 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
Pelvic reconstructive surgery is increasingly being performed with autologous grafts to avoid complications of synthetic mesh and improve the durability of a native tissue repair. Autologous fascia lata (AFL) provides a reliable source of robust connective tissue to improve surgical outcomes. We present our technique and initial experience with performing robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) augmented with AFL.
A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent RSC with AFL between January 2015 and November 2017. Outcomes evaluated include recurrence of prolapse on physical examination, prolapse symptoms, urinary incontinence, patient satisfaction based on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) and complications.
Twelve patients were identified with a median age of 68 years (range, 46–77 years) at the time of RSC with AFL. Eleven patients had a history of prior sling and/or vaginal mesh. The median operative time was 225 min (177–302 min). There were no intra- or postoperative complications. After a median follow-up of 14.7 months (5.7 to 39 months), the median PGI-I response was 2 (range, 1–3, very much to a little better). No recurrent or persistent apical prolapse was observed. Three patients (25%) reported recurrence of sensation of a vaginal bulge, which were all due to anterior vaginal wall prolapse.
RSC can be performed with AFL and should be considered in patients with a history of mesh complications. Overall patient satisfaction was high. While these short-term outcomes are encouraging, further studies are needed to assess long-term durability of anatomic results.
KeywordsRobot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy Fascia lata
autologous fascia lata
Patient Global Impression of Improvement
pelvic organ prolapse
robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
stress urinary incontinence
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 2.Lee D, Zimmern PE. Management of complications of mesh surgery. Curr Opin Urol. 2015;25(4):284–91.Google Scholar
- 9.Shah K, Nikolavsky D. Gilsdorf, Flynn BJ. Surgical management of lower urinary mesh perforation after mid-urethral polypropylene mesh sling: mesh excision, urinary tract reconstruction and concomitant pubovaginal sling with autologous rectus fascia. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(12):2111–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Moarjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012079.Google Scholar
- 13.Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A. Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2014;66(2): 303–318.Google Scholar
- 20.Pellegrino A, Damiani GR, Villa M, Sportelli C, Pezzota MG. Robotic sacrocolpopexy for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a case series of 31 patients by a single surgeon with a long-term follow-up. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69(1):13–7.Google Scholar
- 21.Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Lippmann Q, Lukacz ES, Luber KM, Nager CW, et al. A pilot study comparing anatomic failure after sacrocolpopexy with absorbable or permanent sutures for vaginal mesh attachment. Perman J. 2014;18(4):40–4.Google Scholar