Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-04-2016 | Original Article

Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse

Authors: Jiheum Paek, Maria Lee, Bo Wook Kim, Yongil Kwon

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2016

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to compare robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (RLSH) and open sacrohysteropexy (OSH) as a surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

Among 111 consecutive patients who had undergone sacrohysteropexy for POP, surgical outcomes and postoperative symptoms were compared between the RLSH (n = 54; robotic 14 cases and laparoscopic 40 cases) and OSH (n = 57). groups The medical records of enrolled patients were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

Compared with the OSH group, the RLSH group had shorter operating time (120.2 vs 187.5 min, p < 0.0001), less operative bleeding (median estimated blood loss 50 vs 150 ml; p < 0.0001; mean hemoglobin drop 1.4 vs 2.0 g/dl; p < 0.0001), and fewer postoperative symptoms (13 vs 45.6 %; p < 0.0001). Patients’ overall satisfaction (94.4 vs 91.2 %; p = 0.717) and required reoperation due to postoperative complications (3.7 vs 1.8 %; p = 0.611) did not differ between groups.

Conclusions

RLSH could be a feasible and safe procedure in patients with POP and should be considered as a surgical option that allows preservation of the uterus. Prospective randomized trials will permit the evaluation of potential benefits of RLSH as a minimally invasive surgical approach.

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00058-6 CrossRefPubMed

Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 369:1027–1038. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60462-0 CrossRefPubMed

Dietz HP (2008) The aetiology of prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1323–1329. doi:10.1007/s00192-008-0695-7 CrossRefPubMed

Mothes AR, Radosa MP, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Runnebaum IB (2015) Risk index for pelvic organ prolapse based on established individual risk factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet. doi:10.1007/s00404-015-3863-2

Thys SD, Roovers JP, Geomini PM, Bongers MY (2012) Do patients prefer a pessary or surgery as primary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Investig 74:6–12. doi:10.1159/000336634 CrossRef

Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, Zyczynski H, Network PFD (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104:805–823CrossRefPubMed

Ridgeway BM (2015) Does prolapse equal hysterectomy? The role of uterine conservation in women with uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.035

Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, Saguan D, Gross C, Evans J, Lopes VV, Harvie HS, Sung VW (2013) Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 209:470–e1-6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003 PubMed

Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD (2013) Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19:103–109. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Barranger E, Fritel X, Pigne A (2003) Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: long-term follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1245–1250. doi:10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00665-3 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Leron E, Stanton SL (2001) Sacrohysteropexy with synthetic mesh for the management of uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG 108:629–633. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00138.x PubMed

12.

Moiety FM, Hegab HM, Ghanem IA, Zedan WM, Salem HA (2010) Abdominal sacrohysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective study on 33 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet 281:631–636. doi:10.1007/s00404-009-1146-5 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Jeon MJ, Jung HJ, Choi HJ, Kim SK, Bai SW (2008) Is hysterectomy or the use of graft necessary for the reconstructive surgery for uterine prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(3):351–355CrossRefPubMed

14.

Costantini E, Porena M, Lazzeri M, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A (2013) Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair: role of hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 24:1481–1487. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-2041-3 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Gutman R, Maher C (2013) Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24:1803–1813. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2171-2 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Rosati M, Bramante S, Bracale U, Pignata G, Azioni G (2013) Efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for apical support of pelvic organ prolapse. JSLS 17:235–244. doi:10.4293/108680813X13654754535115 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Rosati M, Bramante S, Conti F (2014) A review on the role of laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 26:281–289. doi:10.1097/GCO.0000000000000079 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Li S, Ji M, Zhao Z (2015) The effectiveness of two different laparoscopic surgeries for apical support of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 188:74–78. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.03.007 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Demirci F, Ozdemir I, Somunkiran A, Topuz S, Iyibozkurt C, Duras Doyran G, Kemik Gul O, Gul B (2007) Perioperative complications in abdominal sacrocolpopexy and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation procedures. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:257–261. doi:10.1007/s00192-006-0134-6 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Richter HE, Goode PS, Kenton K, Brown MB, Burgio KL, Kreder K, Moalli P, Wright EJ, Weber AM (2007) The effect of age on short-term outcomes after abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. J Am Geriatr Soc 55:857–863. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01178.x CrossRefPubMed

21.

Germain A, Thibault F, Galifet M, Scherrer ML, Ayav A, Hubert J, Brunaud L, Bresler L (2013) Long-term outcomes after totally robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Surg Endosc 27:525–529. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2472-4 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Yoo HN, Kim TJ, Lee YY, Choi CH, Lee JW, Bae DS, Kim BG (2015) Single-site robotic surgery in gynecologic cancer: a pilot study. J Gynecol Oncol 26:62–67. doi:10.3802/jgo.2015.26.1.62 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Buchs NC, Pugin F, Ris F, Volonte F, Morel P, Roche B (2013) Early experience with robotic rectopexy. Int J Med Robot 9:e61–e65. doi:10.1002/rcs.1498 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1006602 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Porena M, Mearini L, Costantini E (2010) Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol 7:626–633. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2010.164 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR (2010) Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG 117:62–68. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02396.x CrossRefPubMed

27.

van IJsselmuiden MN, Coolen AL, Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Bongers M, van de Pol G, Vollebregt A, Radder CM, Deprest J, van Eijndhoven HW (2014) Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (LAVA-trial, study protocol). BMC Womens Health 14:112. doi:10.1186/1472-6874-14-112 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HW (2015) Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ 351:h3717. doi:10.1136/bmj.h3717 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker MO, Chartier-Kastler E, Roupret M (2012) Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol 30:393–398. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0748-2 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112:1201–1206. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Vitobello D, Siesto G, Bulletti C (2012) Robotic sacral hysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Med Robot 8:114–117. doi:10.1002/rcs.447 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.186 CrossRefPubMed

33.

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. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H (2015) Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9

35.

Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, Sanses TV, Steinberg AC, South MM, Balk EM, Sung VW, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group (2015) Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 125:44–55. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000570 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Desille-Gbaguidi H, Hebert T, Paternotte-Villemagne J, Gaborit C, Rush E, Body G (2013) Overall care cost comparison between robotic and laparoscopic surgery for endometrial and cervical cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 171:348–352. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.025 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Fader AN, Seamon LG, Escobar PF, Frasure HE, Havrilesky LA, Zanotti KM, Secord AA, Boggess JF, Cohn DE, Fowler JM, Skafianos G, Rossi E, Gehrig PA (2012) Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy in women with high grade endometrial cancer: a multi-site study performed at high volume cancer centers. Gynecol Oncol 126:180–185. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.04.028 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse
Authors: Jiheum Paek
Maria Lee
Bo Wook Kim
Yongil Kwon
Publication date: 01-04-2016
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2869-4

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Patient reported outcome measures after incontinence and prolapse surgery: are the pictures painted by the ICIQ and PGI-I accurate?

The “learning curve” for retropubic mid-urethral sling procedures: a retrospective cohort study

A survey of prolapse practice in UK women’s health physiotherapists: what has changed in the last decade?

Time efficiency of a web-based questionnaire in urogynecology: a randomized study

Carl Gustav Nilsson 1944–2015

Effects of a new community-based reproductive health intervention on knowledge of and attitudes and behaviors toward stress urinary incontinence among young women in Shanghai: a cluster-randomized controlled trial