Long-term outcomes after totally robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, effectiveness, and long-term results of pelvic organ prolapse surgery using the Da Vinci® robotic system.

Methods

During a 7-year period, 52 consecutive patients with pelvic organ prolapse underwent robotic-assisted abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Clinical data were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

Results

All but two of the procedures were successfully completed robotically (96 %). Median operative time was 190 (range, 75–340) mins. There was no mortality and no specific morbidity due to the robotic approach. Mean hospital stay was 5 days. The median follow-up was 42 months. Five recurrent prolapses (9.6 %) were diagnosed.

Conclusions

Our experience indicates that using the Da-Vinci® robotic system is feasible, safe, and effective for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse with good long-term results.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E (1996) Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1418–1421 discussion 1421–1422

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Gadonneix P, Ercoli A, Salet-Lizee D, Cotelle O, Bolner B, Van Den Akker M et al (2004) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with two separate meshes along the anterior and posterior vaginal walls for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11(1):29–35

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cosson M, Bogaert E, Narducci F, Querleu D, Crepin G (2000) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: short-term results and complications in 83 patients. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 29(8):746–750

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sarlos D, Brandner S, Kots L, Gygax N, Schaer G (2008) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for uterine and post-hysterectomy prolapse: anatomical results, quality of life and perioperative outcome-a prospective study with 101 cases. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(10):1415–1422

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rivoire C, Botchorishvili R, Canis M, Jardon K, Rabischong B, Wattiez A et al (2007) Complete laparoscopic treatment of genital prolapse with meshes including vaginal promontofixation and anterior repair: a series of 138 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 14(6):712–718

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Antiphon P, Elard S, Benyoussef A, Fofana M, Yiou R, Gettman M et al (2004) Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: is the posterior, recto-vaginal, mesh mandatory? Eur Urol 45(5):655–661

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ayav A, Bresler L, Brunaud L, Zarnegar R, Boissel P (2005) Surgical management of combined rectal and genital prolapse in young patients: transabdominal approach. Int J Colorectal Dis 20(2):173–179

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Ayav A, Bresler L, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Boissel P (2005) Robotic-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Surg Endosc 19(9):1200–1203

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS (2004) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 63(2):373–376

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Daneshgari F, Kefer JC, Moore C, Kaouk J (2007) Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int 100(4):875–879

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH et al (2009) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 23(10):2390–2394

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1201–1206

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Wong MT, Meurette G, Rigaud J, Regenet N, Lehur PA (2011) Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 54(3):342–346

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Brunaud L, Bresler L, Zarnegar R, Ayav A, Cormier L, Tretou S et al (2004) Does robotic adrenalectomy improve patient quality of life when compared to laparoscopic adrenalectomy? World J Surg 28(11):1180–1185

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Moreno Sierra J, Ortiz Oshiro E, Fernandez Perez C, Galante Romo I, Corral Rosillo J, Prieto Nogal S et al (2011) Long-term outcomes after robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: prospective analysis. Urol Int 86(4):414–418

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Bai SW, Kang SH, Kim SK, Kim JY, Park KH (2003) The effect of pelvic organ prolapse on lower urinary tract function. Yonsei Med J 44(1):94–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kulseng-Hanssen S (2003) The development of a national database of the results of surgery for urinary incontinence in women. BJOG 110(11):975–982

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Borstad E, Abdelnoor M, Staff AC, Kulseng-Hanssen S (2010) Surgical strategies for women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 21(2):179–186

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM (2010) Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(4):493–499

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

A. Germain, F. Thibault, M. Galifet, M-L. Scherrer, A. Ayav, J. Hubert, L. Brunaud, and L. Bresler have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Germain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Germain, A., Thibault, F., Galifet, M. et al. Long-term outcomes after totally robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Surg Endosc 27, 525–529 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2472-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Robotic surgery
  • Da Vinci
  • Pelvic organ prolapse
  • Sacrocolpopexy