Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning curves and perioperative outcomes of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy on two different da Vinci® surgical systems

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to report a single surgeon’s early experience and learning curves of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy on two different robotic surgical platforms, namely, the single-site approach on da Vinci Xi® and single-port approach on da Vinci SP® surgical systems. This retrospective study included 123 consecutive cases of robotic sacrocolpopexy performed between June 2017 and June 2021 for the patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage 2–4 symptomatic prolapse. First consecutive 57 cases were performed under the da Vinci Xi® system applying the single-site manner, whereas the following 66 cases were done under the da Vinci SP® system. The primary outcome was intraoperative and perioperative complication rates, and the secondary outcome was learning curve of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy under the two different robotic surgical platforms. Learning curves based on the operation time were obtained through cumulative sum analysis. The mean age of each group was 65.6 ± 8.7 years for single-site robotic sacrocolpopexy and 63.7 ± 7.6 years for the single-port one (p = 0.202). More than 80% of patients for each group had advanced prolapse stages and underwent concomitant total hysterectomy. The overall baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between groups. The median operation time for each group were 201.0 and 201.5 min, respectively. Both groups showed comparable perioperative outcomes in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Intraoperative cystostomy rates were 1.8% and 3.0%, respectively, and revealed no statistical difference (p = 0.736). The learning curves were comparable, and the surgeon required less than 15 cases for both single-site and single-port robotic sacrocolpopexies to stabilize operation time. Comparable learning curves and favorable intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy using two different robotic surgical systems show that both are feasible options for robotic sacrocolpopexy.

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

Data availability statement

Data is available from the corresponding author upon resonable request.

References

  1. Haya N, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, de Tayrac R, Dietz V, Guldberg R, Mascarenhas T, Nussler E, Ballard E, Ankardal M, Boudemaghe T, Wu JM, Maher CF (2015) Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212:7551 e1-7755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, Slack M, Scott P, Waterfield M (2013) A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J 24:377–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1885-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, Magtibay PM (2009) Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 23:2390–2394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0311-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Callewaert G, Bosteels J, Housmans S, Verguts J, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Van der Aa F, De Ridder D, Vergote I, Deprest J (2016) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Gynecol Surg 13:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0930-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, Murphy M, Lukban J, Jeppson P, Aschkenazi S, Olivera C, South M, Lowenstein L, Schaffer J, Balk EM, Sung V, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review G (2014) Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21:353–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, Uccella S, Cromi A, Ghezzi F (2014) Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 66:303–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR (2014) Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20:252–260. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000070

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Culligan PJ, Lewis C, Priestley J, Mushonga N (2020) Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using lightweight Y-mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 26:202–206. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K (2015) Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:234–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Matanes E, Boulus S, Lauterbach R, Amit A, Weiner Z, Lowenstein L (2020) Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 222:358 e1-358 e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee SR, Roh AM, Jeong K, Kim SH, Chae HD, Moon HS (2021) First report comparing the two types of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy: single site using the da Vinci Xi or Si system and single port using the da Vinci SP system. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 60:60–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2020.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Noh TI, Tae JH, Shim JS, Kang SH, Cheon J, Lee JG, Kang SG (2022) Initial experience of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon’s experience with technique description. Prostate Int 10:85–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2021.10.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Shin HJ, Yoo HK, Lee JH, Lee SR, Jeong K, Moon HS (2020) Robotic single-port surgery using the da Vinci SP(R) surgical system for benign gynecologic disease: a preliminary report. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 59:243–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2020.01.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoo HK, Cho A, Cho EH, Kim SJ, Shim JE, Lee SR, Jeong K, Moon HS (2020) Robotic single-site surgery in benign gynecologic diseases: experiences and learning curve based on 626 robotic cases at a single institute. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 46(1885–1892):92. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ercoli A, Campagna G, Delmas V, Ferrari S, Morciano A, Scambia G, Cervigni M (2016) Anatomical insights into sacrocolpopexy for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 35:813–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Muavha DA, Ras L, Jeffery S (2019) Laparoscopic surgical anatomy for pelvic floor surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 54:89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.11.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nishikimi K, Tate S, Matsuoka A, Shozu M (2020) Learning curve of high-complexity surgery for advanced ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 156:54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.10.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Matanes E, Lauterbach R, Mustafa-Mikhail S, Amit A, Wiener Z, Lowenstein L (2017) Single port robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy: our experience with the first 25 cases. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 23:e14–e18. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nam G, Lee SR, Roh AM, Kim JH, Choi S, Kim SH, Chae HD (2021) Single-incision vs. multiport robotic sacrocolpopexy: 126 consecutive cases at a single institution. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10194457

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Akladios CY, Dautun D, Saussine C, Baldauf JJ, Mathelin C, Wattiez A (2010) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for female genital organ prolapse: establishment of a learning curve. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Bio 149:218–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.12.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sumin Oh and Nayoung Bae contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Korea University Guro Hospital, 148 Gurodong-ro, Guro-gu, Seoul, 08308, Republic of Korea

    Sumin Oh, Nayoung Bae, Hyun-Woong Cho, Yoon Jeong Park, Yong Jin Kim & Jung-Ho Shin

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Hyun-Woong Cho, Yong Jin Kim & Jung-Ho Shin

Authors
  1. Sumin Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nayoung Bae
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hyun-Woong Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yoon Jeong Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yong Jin Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jung-Ho Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SO and NB: contributed to data collection, data management and analysis, and manuscript writing. HWC, YJP, and YJK: contributed to data collection. JHS: contributed to project development, data management and analysis, and manuscript editing. All authors approved final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jung-Ho Shin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the institutional review board of Korea University Guro Hospital (2021GR0064) and informed consent was waived by the institutional review board because of the nature of the retrospective study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oh, S., Bae, N., Cho, HW. et al. Learning curves and perioperative outcomes of single-incision robotic sacrocolpopexy on two different da Vinci® surgical systems. J Robotic Surg 17, 1457–1462 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01541-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01541-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation