Techniques for Robotic Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

  • Megan E. Tarr
  • Marie Fidela Paraiso


Laparoscopic urethropexy was introduced in the early 1990s, and the first robot-assisted sacral colpopexy was reported in 2004. Over the past 10–15 years, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques have been applied to many prolapse and incontinence procedures. After the United States Food and Drug Administration approved its use in gynecologic surgery in 2005, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; Sunnyvale, CA) gave gynecologic surgeons another minimally invasive option for surgeries that had been previously performed by laparotomy, vaginally, or by the traditional laparoscopic technique.


Rectal Prolapse Mesh Erosion Robotic Group Rectovaginal Septum Anterior Longitudinal Ligament 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology. 2004;63:373–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:120–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nosti PA, Umoh U, Kane S, et al. Outcomes of minimally invasive and abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network Study (abstract). Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:S18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, Magtibay PM. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2390–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:739–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kho R. Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy on skill acquisition and performance. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:376–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lawson EH, Curet MJ, Sanchez BR, Schuster R, Berguer R. Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg. 2007;1:61–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee EC, Rafiq A, Merrell R, Ackerman R, Dennerlein JT. Ergonomics and human factors in endoscopic surgery: a comparison of manual vs telerobotic simulation systems. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:1064–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berguer R, Smith W. An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res. 2006;134:87–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Schatte Olivier RH, Van’t Hullenaar CD, Ruurda JP, Broeders IA. Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1365–71.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Falabella A, Moore-Jeffries E, Sullivan MJ, Nelson R, Lew M. Cardiac function during steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum for robotic-assisted prostatectomy: a trans-oesophageal Doppler probe study. Int J Med Robot. 2007;3:312–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ogunnaike BO, Jones SB, Jones DB, Provost D, Whitten CW. Anesthetic considerations for bariatric surgery. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:1793–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danic MJ, Chow M, Alexander G, et al. Anesthesia considerations for robotic-assisted prostatectomy: a review of 1,500 cases. J Robot Surg. 2007;1:119–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baltayian S. A brief review: anesthesia for robotic prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2008;2:59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    London ET, Ho HS, Neuhaus AM, Wolfe BM, Rudich SM, Perez RV. Effect of intravascular volume expansion and renal function during prolonged CO2 pneumoperitoneum. Ann Surg. 2000;231:195–201.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tekelioglu UY, Erdem A, Demirhan A, Akkaya A, Ozturk S, Bilgi M, et al. The prolonged effect of pneumoperitoneum on cardiac autonomic functions during laparoscopic surgery: are we aware? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013;17:895–902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murdock CM, Wolff AJ, Van Geem T. Risk factors for hypercarbia, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum during laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:704–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Routh JC, Bacon DR, Leibovich BC, Zincke H, Blute ML, Frank I. How long is too long? The effect of the duration of anesthesia on the incidence of non-urological complications after surgery. BJU Int. 2008;102:301–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. doi:  10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5.
  20. 20.
    Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frapell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:377–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:360.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, McDonald MA, Shveiky D, Park AJ, Gutman RE, Sokol A. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:158–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Coates K, Low VH, Bump RC, Addison WA. Abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy: a new approach for correction of posterior compartment defects and perineal descent associated with vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:1345–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McDermott CD, Park J, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Laparoscopic sacral colpoperineopexy: abdominal versus abdominal-vaginal posterior graft attachment. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:469–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nosti PA, Lowman JK, Zollinger TW, Hale DS, Woodman PJ. Risk of mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy with concurrent hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:541.e1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Su KC, Mutone MF, Terry CL, Hale DS. Abdominovaginal sacral colpoperineopexy: patient perceptions, anatomical outcomes and graft erosions. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:503–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:688.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Visco AG, Weidner AC, Barber MD, Myers ER, Cundiff GW, Bump RC, Addison WA, et al. Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:297–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reddy J, Ridgeway B, Gurland B, et al. Robotic sacrocolpoperineopexy with ventral rectopexy for the combined treatment of rectal and pelvic organ prolapse: initial report and technique. J Robot Surg. 2011;5:167–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wehbe SA, El-Khawand D, Arunachalam D, et al. Comparative outcomes of robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy and sacrocolpoperineopexy. A cohort study (abstract). Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31:261–2.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cullen J, Rosselli JM, Gurland BH. Ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2012;25:34–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1500–05.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wong MT, Meurette G, Rigaud J, Regenet N, Lehur PA. Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:342–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Slawik S, Soulsby R, Carter H, Payne H, Dixon AR. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction. Colorectal Dis. 2007;10:138–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sagar PM, Thekkinkattil DK, Heath RM, Woodfield J, Gonsalves S, Landon CR. Feasibility and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for combined vaginal and rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1414–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Samaranayake CB, Luo C, Plank AW, Merrie AE, Plank LD, Bissett IP. Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis. 2009;12:504–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Heemskerk J, de Hoog DENM, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND. Robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;50:1825–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    de Hoog DE, Heemskerk J, Nieman FH, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Bouvy ND. Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:1201–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drewes PG, Marinis SI, Schaffer JI, Boreham MK, Corton MM. Vascular anatomy over the superior pubic rami in female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:2165–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pathi SD, Castellanos ME, Corton MM. Variability of the retropubic space anatomy in female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:524.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Khan MS, Challacombe B, Rose K, Dasgupta P. Robotic colposuspension: two case reports. J Endourol. 2007;21:1077–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lapitan MCM, Cody JD. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD002912. doi:  10.1002/14651858.CD002912.pub5.
  44. 44.
    Morris AR, Reilly ET, Hassan A, et al. 5–7 year follow up of a randomized trial comparing laparoscopic colposuspension and open colposuspension in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence (abstract). Int Urogynecol J. 2001;12 Suppl 3:S6.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ankardal M, Ekerydh A, Crafoord K, Milsom I, Stjerndahl JH, Engh ME. A randomized trial comparing open Burch colposuspension using sutures with laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh and staples in women with stress urinary incontinence. BJOG. 2004;111:974–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fatthy H, El Hao M, Samaha I, Abdallah K. Modified Burch colposuspension: laparoscopic versus laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001;8:99–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stangel-Wojcikiewicz K. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension compared to laparotomy for treatment of urinary stress incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;27:714 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Su TH, Wang KG, Hsu CY, Wei HJ, Hong BK. Prospective comparison of laparoscopic and traditional colposuspension in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76:576–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kitchener HC, Dunn G, Lawton V, Reid F, Nelson L, Smith AR, COLPO Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension—results of a prospective randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:1007–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tuygun C, Bakirtas H, Eroglu M, Alisir I, Zengin K, Imamoglu A. Comparison of two different surgical approaches in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: open and laparoscopic Burch colpopsuspension. Turk Uroloji Dergisi. 2006;32:248–53.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cheon WC, Mak JH, Liu JY. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic open colposuspension. Hong Kong Med J. 2003;9:10–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Carey MP, Goh JT, Rosamilia A, Cornish A, Gordon I, Hawthorne G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open Burch colposuspension: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:999–1006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ustun Y, Engin-Ustun Y, Gungor M, Tezcan S. Randomized comparison of Burch urethropexy procedures concomitant with gynecologic operations. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;59:19–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan E. Tarr
    • 1
  • Marie Fidela Paraiso
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women’s Health InstituteCleveland ClinicClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations