Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 12/2022

17-06-2022 | Hysterectomy | IUJ Video

Robotic sacrohysteropexy: an instructional video for uterovaginal prolapse repair in patients with desired uterine preservation

Authors: Jenna Warehime, Zebulun Cope, Rehan Feroz, Stacy M. Lenger, Ankita Gupta, Sean Francis

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 12/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy is a feasible and safe option for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse in patients with prior sacrorectopexy. This video demonstrates an approach to robotic sacrohysteropexy while also adapting for a patient’s prior sacrorectopexy. Sacrohysteropexy has been shown to be a viable option in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery for the repair of uterovaginal prolapse.

Methods

This video demonstrates key steps in performing a robotic sacrohysteropexy without compromising the integrity of the patient’s prior sacrorectopexy. First, incision and dissection of the anterior and posterior peritoneum overlying the cervical stroma is carried out. Tunnels are made through the avascular plane of the broad ligament lateral to the uterine vessels, so as not to compromise uterine blood supply. The anterior and posterior arms of the mesh are attached with interrupted sutures to the cervical stroma. The presacral space is entered and dissected such that the anterior longitudinal ligament is exposed. Care is taken not to disrupt the sutures from the prior sacrorectopexy as the sacral arm of the mesh is secured with two interrupted stitches.

Conclusion

At completion of the procedure the patient had a well-supported apical compartment.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, et al. Effect of vaginal mesh hysteropexy vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322:1054.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, et al. Effect of vaginal mesh hysteropexy vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322:1054.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Carramão S, Auge AP, Pacetta AM, et al. A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of uterine prolapse using polypropylene mesh: hysteropexy versus hysterectomy. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2009;36:65.CrossRefPubMed Carramão S, Auge AP, Pacetta AM, et al. A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of uterine prolapse using polypropylene mesh: hysteropexy versus hysterectomy. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2009;36:65.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP. A randomized controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG. 2004;111(1):50.CrossRefPubMed Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP. A randomized controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG. 2004;111(1):50.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, Saguan D, Gross C, Evans J, Lopes VV, Harvie HS, Sung VW. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470 e1–6.CrossRef Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, Saguan D, Gross C, Evans J, Lopes VV, Harvie HS, Sung VW. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470 e1–6.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9.CrossRefPubMed Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Robotic sacrohysteropexy: an instructional video for uterovaginal prolapse repair in patients with desired uterine preservation
Authors
Jenna Warehime
Zebulun Cope
Rehan Feroz
Stacy M. Lenger
Ankita Gupta
Sean Francis
Publication date
17-06-2022
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Keyword
Hysterectomy
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 12/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05260-z

Other articles of this Issue 12/2022

International Urogynecology Journal 12/2022 Go to the issue