Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Robotic Surgery Applications in Female Pelvic Floor Reconstruction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • 943 Accesses

Abstract

Genital prolapse is a widespread condition in women. Sacrocolpopexy has been considered the primary method of treating this condition for many years. With the advent of robotic surgery, sacrocolpopexy has acquired a new life. Despite this, there is still much interest in this procedure, and many questions remain unanswered. This chapter describes in detail the etiology and pathogenesis of genital prolapse and presents the classification of the disease; details of robotic sacrocolpopexy and sacrohysteropexy, in particular, are given. It focuses on the most practical aspects of treatment of POP (pelvic organ prolapse) using recent developments of robotic technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, et al. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med. 1999;44:679.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Elliott DS. Diagnosis and management of apical prolapse. In: Goldman HB, Vasavada SP, editors. Female urology: a practical clinical guide. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press Inc; 2007. p. 297–305. Chapter 21.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gilleran JP, Johnson M, Hundley A. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Ther Adv Urol. 2010;2:195–208.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Akeel NY, Gurland B, Hull T. Pelvic floor disorders related to urology and gynecology. In: Beck DE, Steele SR, Wexner SD, editors. Fundamentals of anorectal surgery. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 571–82.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dietz HP. Pelvic organ prolapse: a review. AFP. 2015;44(7):446–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dietz H. Pelvic floor trauma in childbirth. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53:220–30.

    Google Scholar 

  9. McIntosh LJ, Mallett VT, Frahm JD, Richardson DA, Evans MI. Gynecologic disorders in women with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. J Soc Gynecol Invest. 1995;2:559–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jackson SR, Avery NC, Tarlton JF, Eckford SD, Abrams P, Bai- ley AJ. Changes in metabolism of collagen in genitourinary prolapse. Lancet. 1996;347:1658–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dietz H. The aetiology of prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19:1323–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, Milsom I. Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;120:152–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Glazener C, Mac Arthur C, Bain C, et al. Epidemiology of pelvic organ prolapse in relation to delivery mode history at 12 years after childbirth: a longitudinal cohort study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:819–20.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Patel D, Xu X, Thomason AD, Ransom SB, Ivy JS, DeLancey JO. Childbirth and pelvic floor dysfunction: an epidemiologic approach to the assessment of prevention opportunities at delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:23–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Laborda E, Gelman W, Anthony F, Monga A. Is increased collagen metabolism the cause or effect of prolapse: a controlled study. Neurourol Urodynam. 2003;22:505–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lind LR, Lucente V, Kohn N. Thoracic kyphosis and the prevalence of advanced uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:605–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen JK, Lind LR, Choe JY, McKindsey F, Sinow R, Bhatia NN. Lumbosacral spine and pelvic inlet changes associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:332–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, et al. Pelvic organ support study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:795–806.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Swift SE. The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:L277–85.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nygaard I, Barber MD. Prevalence of Symptomatic Pelvic Floor Disorders in US Women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, et al. Prevalence and Trends of Symptomatic Pelvic Floor Disorders in U.S Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):141–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jokhio AH, Mohsin R, MacArthur C. Prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse in women, associated factors and impact on quality of life in rural Pakistan: population- based study. BMC Women’s Health. 2020;20:82.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Walker GJA, Gunasekera P. Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:12.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dietz H. Prolapse worsens with age, doesn’t it? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48:587–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dixit P, Shek K, Dietz H. How common is pelvic floor muscle atrophy after vaginal childbirth? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:83–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mant J, Painter R, Vessey M. Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford Family Planning Association Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:579–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Samuelsson EC, Victor FTA, Tibblin G, Svärdsudd KF. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:299–305.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rinne KM, Kirkinen PP. What predisposes young women to genital prolapse? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1999;84:23–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lowenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:49–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Young N, Kamisan Atan I, Dietz H. Obesity: how much does it matter for female pelvic organ prolapse? In: RCOG World Congress. RCOG: Brisbane; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jorgensen S, Hein HO, Gyntelberg F. Heavy lifting at work and risk of genital prolapse and herniated lumbar disc in assistant nurses. Occup Med. 1994;44:47–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, Goldman HB, Huser M, Milani AL, Moran PA, Schaer GN, Withagen MI. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) /International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(2):165–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Persu C, Chapple CR, Gutue S, Geavlete P. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) – a new era in pelvic prolapse staging. J Med Life. 2011;4(1):75–81.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Singh K, Jakab M, Reid WM, Berger LA, Hoyte L. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging assessment of levator ani morphologic features in different grades of prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(2, 2):910–915–915.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Nichols DH, Randall CL. Vaginal surgery. In: Types of prolapse. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. p. 101–18. Chapter 5.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Petros PE, Ulmsten UI. An integral theory of female urinary incontinence. Experimental and clinical considerations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1990;153:7–31. (Review)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Davila HH, Gallo T, Bruce L, Landrey C. Robotic and laparoendoscopic single-site utero-sacral ligament suspension for apical vaginal prolapse: evaluation of our technique and perioperative outcomes. J Robot Surg. 2017;11(2):171–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the women’s health initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS. Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:646–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly AM, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, Uccella S, Cromi A, Ghezzi F. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):303–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Culligan PJ, Lewis C, Priestley J, et al. Long-term outcomes of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using lightweight Y-mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(3):202–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):141–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Davila HH, Abdelhameed S, Malave-Huertas D, et al. Ultrasonography and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy with pubocervical fascia reconstruction: comparison with standard technique. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(5):759–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jelovsek EJ, Barber MD, Brubaker L, Norton P, Gantz M, Richter HE, Weidner A, Menefee S, Schaffer J, Pugh N, Meikle S, NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the optimal randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Umek WH, Morgan DM, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO. Quantitative analysis of uterosacral ligament origin and insertion points by magnetic resonance imaging. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:447–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000113104.22887.cd.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Davila HH, Di Natale R, Bruce L, Goodman L, Gallo T. Anatomic evaluation of uterosacral and cardinal ligament during robotic and laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;7:1216–27. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2017.712124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Davila HH, Bruce L, Goodman L, Gallo T. Robotic assisted laparoscopic apical suspension. Description of a 4 points technique (RALAS-4): first case reported. Open J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;7:944–50. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojog.2017.79095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Davila HH, Brown K, Dara P, Bruce L, Goodman L, Gallo T. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic apical suspension: description of the spiral technique. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(3):519–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0879-1. Epub 2018 Oct 3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ercoli A, Campagna G, Delmas V, Ferrari S, Morciano A, Scambia G, Cervigni M. Anatomical insights into sacrocolpopexy for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(7):813–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22806. Epub 2015 Jul 5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Shiozawa T, Huebner M, Hirt B, Wallwiener D, Reisenauer C. Nerve-preserving sacrocolpopexy: anatomical study and surgical approach. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;152(1):103–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.05.009. Epub 2010 Jun 9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kiyomatsu T, Ishihara S, Murono K, Otani K, Yasuda K, et al. Anatomy of the middle rectal artery: a review of the historical literature. Surg Today. 2017;47(1):14–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-016-1359-8. Epub 2016 Jun 3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shiozawa T, Huebner M, Hirt B, et al. Nerve-preserving sacrocolpopexy: anatomical study and surgical approach. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010 Sep;152(1):103–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.05.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Jeanditgautier E, Mayeur O, Brieu M, et al. Mobility and stress analysis of different surgical simulations during a sacrocolpopexy, using a finite element model of the pelvic system. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(6):951–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2917-0. Epub 2016 Jan 11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. White AB, Carrick KS, Corton MM, et al. Optimal location and orientation of suture placement in abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(5):1098–103. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819ec4ee.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Boukerrou M, Orazi G, Nayama M, et al. Technique de la promontofixation: suspension au promontoire par fils ou Tackers? [Promontofixation procedure: use of non-absorbable sutures or Tackers?]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2003;32(6):524–8. French

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Alexander Popov and George Kasyan for reviewing and preparing the chapter for publication. Thanks to Larisa Borchaninova for her comprehensive illustrations of surgical procedures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russia

    Dmitry Y. Pushkar

  2. Department of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital, Gifford, FL, USA

    Hugo H. Davila

  3. Universidad de Panama, Panama City, Panama

    Marcos A. Young Rodriguez

Authors
  1. Dmitry Y. Pushkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hugo H. Davila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcos A. Young Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

    Peter Wiklund

  2. Department of Urology, ORSI Academy, Aalst, Belgium

    Alexandre Mottrie

  3. Pediatric Urology, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mohan S Gundeti

  4. Urology, Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA

    Vipul Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pushkar, D.Y., Davila, H.H., Young Rodriguez, M.A. (2022). Robotic Surgery Applications in Female Pelvic Floor Reconstruction. In: Wiklund, P., Mottrie, A., Gundeti, M.S., Patel, V. (eds) Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00363-9_75

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00363-9_75

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-00362-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-00363-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation