Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: How Does It Compare with Other Prolapse Repair Techniques?

  • Female Urology (H Goldman, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy has been shown to have the highest, most durable success rates among techniques for apical pelvic organ prolapse repair. Recently, there has been increased application of minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopic and robotic approaches, to performing a sacrocolpopexy. We report an overview of the literature in order to compare between robotic sacrocolpopexy and other surgical techniques for the repair of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Our review will include a discussion of operative techniques, anatomic and subjective success rates, costs, and complications.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Elliott DS. Diagnosis and management of apical prolapse. In: Goldman HB, Vasavada SP, editors. Female Urology: A Practical Clinical Guide. Totowa: Humana Press Inc; 2007. p. 297–305.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166:1717–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kobashi K. Evaluation of Patients with Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Prolapse. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, et al., editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 10th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2012. p. 1896–908.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;8:CD004014.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Webb MJ, Aronson MP, Ferguson LK, Lee RA. Posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: primary repair in 693 patients. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:281–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Timmons MC, Addison WA, Addison SB, Cavenar MG. Abdominal sacral colpopexy in 163 women with posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse and enterocele. Evolution of operative techniques. J Reprod Med. 1992;37:323–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenzweig BA, Pushkin S, Blumenfeld D, Bhatia NN. Prevalence of abnormal urodynamic test results in continent women with severe genitourinary prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:539–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Siddique S, et al. Colpocleisis: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:261–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. DeLancey JO, Morley GW. Total colpocleisis for vaginal eversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176:1228–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Abbasy S, Kenton K. Obliterative procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53:86–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. von Pechmann WS, Mutone M, Fyffe J, Hale DS. Total colpocleisis with high levator plication for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:121–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, et al. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:20–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. 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. 1996;175:1418–21. discussion 21–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sauer HA, Klutke CG. Transvaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for treatment of vaginal prolapse. J Urol. 1995;154:1008–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Beer M, Kuhn A. Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;119:144–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Julian TM. The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:1472–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cosson M, Debodinance P, Boukerrou 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;14:169–78. discussion 78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, et al. Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1459–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1089–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hsiao KC, Latchamsetty K, Govier FE, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. J Endourol. 2007;21:926–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, et al. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1752–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Akladios CY, Dautun D, Saussine C, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for female genital organ prolapse: establishment of a learning curve. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;149:218–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2390–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology. 2004;63:373–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK. Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol. 2006;176:655–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, McDonald MA, et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:158–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. • Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79:532–6. This recent retrospective report with long-term follow-up demonstrates durable success with RSC, when compared with ASC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. • Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:435. This retrospective series is the largest reported regarding RSC. With a mean follow-up of 18 months after RSC, it demonstrates excellent success rates with decreased morbidity, as compared with ASC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. • Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005–13. This randomized controlled trial comparing LSC and RSC found increased cost, operating time, and postoperative pain with RSC; no difference in success rates were seen at 1 year of follow-up.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, et al. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol. 2012;187:638–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:493–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mahran MA, Herath RP, Sayed AT, Oligbo N. Laparoscopic management of genital prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:1015–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Klauschie JL, Suozzi BA, O'Brien MM, McBride AW. A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:273–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA

    Brian J. Linder & Daniel S. Elliott

Authors
  1. Brian J. Linder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel S. Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel S. Elliott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Linder, B.J., Elliott, D.S. Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: How Does It Compare with Other Prolapse Repair Techniques?. Curr Urol Rep 14, 235–239 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0299-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-012-0299-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation