Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 11/2022

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

Other articles of this Issue 11/2022

International Urogynecology Journal 11/2022 Go to the issue