Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

21-03-2022 | Laparoscopy | Original Article

Sacrocolpopexy experience with a novel robotic surgical platform

Authors: Jessica C. Sassani, Stephanie Glass Clark, Christine E. McGough, Jonathan P. Shepherd, Michael Bonidie

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 11/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective was to describe early experience performing sacrocolpopexy using a novel robotic surgical platform.

Methods

This is a case series of all women who underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy using a new robotics platform (TransEnterix Senhance) between January 2019 and July 2021. All sacrocolpopexies were performed by a single Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive surgeon at a large academic institution. Perioperative information including complications was abstracted from the medical record. Anatomical recurrence was defined as any anatomical point at or past the hymen (≥0). Data are descriptive, with Mann–Whitney U test used for comparison of operative time between the first and second half of the patients.

Results

A total of 25 sacrocolpopexies were performed using the new robotics platform. Mean age was 62.3 years (±9.2) and mean BMI was 26.5 (±3.8). Ten (40.0%) patients had a prior hysterectomy. Most (n = 21, 84.0%) had stage III or IV prolapse preoperatively. Mean operative time was 210.2 min (±48.6) and median estimated blood loss was 35 ml (IQR 25–50). Mean operative time decreased between the first and second half of the patients (231.7 min vs 190.3 min, p = 0.047). There were no major intraoperative complications. Median follow-up time was 16 weeks (IQR 4–34) and there were no subjective recurrences or retreatments during this period. Two patients (8.0%) had anatomical recurrence without subjective bother. There were two postoperative readmissions (8.0%) within 30 days for small bowel obstruction, one treated surgically and the other with nonsurgical management.

Conclusions

Our case series demonstrates feasibility and successful early adoption of a new robotics platform for robotic sacrocolpopexy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu DH, et al. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD011422.PubMed Lawrie TA, Liu H, Lu DH, et al. Robot-assisted surgery in gynaecology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD011422.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Sinha R, Sanjay M, Rupa B, Kumari S. Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11(1):50–9.CrossRef Sinha R, Sanjay M, Rupa B, Kumari S. Robotic surgery in gynecology. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11(1):50–9.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference ACOG Committee. Assessing and adopting new medical devices for obstetric and gynecologic care: ACOG Committee Opinion Summary, Number 801. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(4):985–6.CrossRef ACOG Committee. Assessing and adopting new medical devices for obstetric and gynecologic care: ACOG Committee Opinion Summary, Number 801. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(4):985–6.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gidaro S, Buscarini M, Ruiz E, Stark M, Labruzzo A. Telelap Alf-X: a novel telesurgical system for the 21st century. Surg Technol Int. 2012;22:20–5.PubMed Gidaro S, Buscarini M, Ruiz E, Stark M, Labruzzo A. Telelap Alf-X: a novel telesurgical system for the 21st century. Surg Technol Int. 2012;22:20–5.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Stark M, Pomati S, D’Ambrosio A, Giraudi F, Gidaro S. A new telesurgical platform—preliminary clinical results. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2015;24(1):31–6.CrossRef Stark M, Pomati S, D’Ambrosio A, Giraudi F, Gidaro S. A new telesurgical platform—preliminary clinical results. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2015;24(1):31–6.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Samalavicius NE, Janusonis V, Siaulys R, et al. Robotic surgery using Senhance. J Robot Surg. 2020;114(2):371–6.CrossRef Samalavicius NE, Janusonis V, Siaulys R, et al. Robotic surgery using Senhance. J Robot Surg. 2020;114(2):371–6.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference DeBeche-Adams T, Eubanks WS, de la Fuente SG. Early experience with the Senhance®-laparoscopic/robotic platform in the US. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(2):357–9.CrossRef DeBeche-Adams T, Eubanks WS, de la Fuente SG. Early experience with the Senhance®-laparoscopic/robotic platform in the US. J Robot Surg. 2019;13(2):357–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rumolo V, Rosati A, Tropea A, Biondi A, Scambia G. Senhance robotic platform for gynecologic surgery: a review of literature. Updates Surg. 2019;71(3):419–27.CrossRef Rumolo V, Rosati A, Tropea A, Biondi A, Scambia G. Senhance robotic platform for gynecologic surgery: a review of literature. Updates Surg. 2019;71(3):419–27.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini C, Ferro M, Roncoroni L. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. Br J Surg. 2003;90(11):1345–8.CrossRef Sarli L, Iusco D, Gobbi S, Porrini C, Ferro M, Roncoroni L. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed with mini-instruments. Br J Surg. 2003;90(11):1345–8.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Gagliardi ML, et al. Minilaparoscopic versus single-port total hysterectomy: a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):192–7.CrossRef Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Gagliardi ML, et al. Minilaparoscopic versus single-port total hysterectomy: a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):192–7.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Siesto G, et al. Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(4):455–61.CrossRef Ghezzi F, Cromi A, Siesto G, et al. Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: results of a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(4):455–61.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Rossitto C, et al. Laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic and single-port hysterectomy: perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(12):3592–6.CrossRef Fanfani F, Fagotti A, Rossitto C, et al. Laparoscopic, minilaparoscopic and single-port hysterectomy: perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(12):3592–6.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Boza A, Urman B, Vatansever D, et al. Mini-laparoscopic gynecological surgery using smaller ports minimizes incisional pain and postoperative scar size: a paired sample analysis. Surg Innov. 2020;27(5):455–60.CrossRef Boza A, Urman B, Vatansever D, et al. Mini-laparoscopic gynecological surgery using smaller ports minimizes incisional pain and postoperative scar size: a paired sample analysis. Surg Innov. 2020;27(5):455–60.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13.CrossRef Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRef Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Whitehead WE, Bradley CS, Brown MB, et al. Gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(1):78.e1–7.CrossRef Whitehead WE, Bradley CS, Brown MB, et al. Gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(1):78.e1–7.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Wadensweiler P, Whitcomb EL, Jeney SES, et al. Bowel obstruction after sacrocolpopexy: a case series. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(11):e677–80.CrossRef Wadensweiler P, Whitcomb EL, Jeney SES, et al. Bowel obstruction after sacrocolpopexy: a case series. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(11):e677–80.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Thomas TN, Davidson ERW, Lampert EJ, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Long-term pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and mesh exposure following sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(9):1763–70.CrossRef Thomas TN, Davidson ERW, Lampert EJ, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Long-term pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and mesh exposure following sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(9):1763–70.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Guiahi M, Kenton K, Brubaker L. Sacrocolpopexy without concomitant posterior repair improves posterior compartment defects. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(9):1267–70.CrossRef Guiahi M, Kenton K, Brubaker L. Sacrocolpopexy without concomitant posterior repair improves posterior compartment defects. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(9):1267–70.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Chang OH, Davidson ERW, Thomas TN, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Predictors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrocolpopexy: a matched case-control study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(1):e165–70.CrossRef Chang OH, Davidson ERW, Thomas TN, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Predictors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrocolpopexy: a matched case-control study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(1):e165–70.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.CrossRef Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Van Zanten F, Schraffordt Koops SE, Pasker-De Jong PCM, Lenters E, Schreuder HWR. Learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpo(recto)pexy: a cumulative sum analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(5):483.e1–e11.CrossRef Van Zanten F, Schraffordt Koops SE, Pasker-De Jong PCM, Lenters E, Schreuder HWR. Learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpo(recto)pexy: a cumulative sum analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(5):483.e1–e11.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Linder BJ, Anand M, Weaver AL, et al. Assessing the learning curve of robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(2):239–46.CrossRef Linder BJ, Anand M, Weaver AL, et al. Assessing the learning curve of robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(2):239–46.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):43–8.CrossRef Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):43–8.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hutchins AR, Manson RJ, Lerebours R, et al. Objective assessment of the early stages of the learning curve for the Senhance surgical robotic system. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(1):201–14.CrossRef Hutchins AR, Manson RJ, Lerebours R, et al. Objective assessment of the early stages of the learning curve for the Senhance surgical robotic system. J Surg Educ. 2019;76(1):201–14.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Rao PP. Robotic surgery: new robots and finally some real competition! World J Urol. 2018;36(4):537–41.CrossRef Rao PP. Robotic surgery: new robots and finally some real competition! World J Urol. 2018;36(4):537–41.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Callewaert G, Bosteels J, Housmans S, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:115–23.CrossRef Callewaert G, Bosteels J, Housmans S, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:115–23.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):493–9.CrossRef Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):493–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Sacrocolpopexy experience with a novel robotic surgical platform
Authors
Jessica C. Sassani
Stephanie Glass Clark
Christine E. McGough
Jonathan P. Shepherd
Michael Bonidie
Publication date
21-03-2022
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 11/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05155-z

Women’s health knowledge hub

Elevate your patient care with our comprehensive, evidence-based medical education on women's health. Designed to help you provide exceptional care for your female patients at every stage of life, we provide expert insights into topics such as reproductive health, menopause, breast cancer and sex-specific health risks and precision medicine.

Read more

Keynote series | Spotlight on menopause

Menopause can have a significant impact on the body, with effects ranging beyond the endocrine and reproductive systems. Learn about the systemic effects of menopause, so you can help patients in your clinics through the transition.   

Prof. Martha Hickey
Dr. Claudia Barth
Dr. Samar El Khoudary
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Watch now
Video