Original Article

Prospective Evaluation of Surgical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy and Sacrocervicopexy for the Management of Apical Pelvic Support Defects

Authors: Catherine A. Matthews, MD, Ashley Carroll, MD, Audra Hill, MD, Viswanathan Ramakrishnan, PhD, Edward J. Gill, MD

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate outcomes of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) and sacrocervicopexy (RCSP).


Methods: We conducted a prospective study of women undergoing RSCP or RCSP between June 2008 and January 2010.


Results: A total of 85 cases (48 RSCP and 37 supracervical hysterectomy with concomitant RCSP) were performed: 33% (28/85) for stage II, 54% (46/85) for stage III, and 13% (11/85) for stage IV pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Six weeks postoperatively, 96% (80/83) had stage 0, 2.4% (2/83) had stage I, and 1.2% (1/83) had stage II POP (P < 0.001). Six months postoperatively, 77% (24/31) had stage 0, 6.5% (2/31) had stage I, and 16% (5/31) had stage II POP (P < 0.001). Mean surgical time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay was 194 ± 54 minutes, 49 ± 48 cm3, and 1.6 ± 0.72 days, respectively. There were 2 cases of mesh erosion (2.3%), both in the RSCP group.


Conclusions: RSCP and RCSP are effective, efficient, and safe procedures.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 2008; 300: 1311–1316.
 
2. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, et al. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 1278–1283.
 
3. Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, et al. Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1837–1840.
 
4. Lowder JL, Park AJ, Ellison R, et al. The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111: 152–157.
 
5. Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, et al. The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1438–1443.
 
6. Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, et al. Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (2 Pt 1): 367–373.
 
7. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 805–823.
 
8. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 4: CD004014.
 
9. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 1201–1206.
 
10. Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 2390–2394.
 
11. Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK. Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 2006; 176: 655–659.
 
12. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 10–17.
 
13. Elliott DS, Frank I, Dimarco DS, et al. Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Surg 2004; 188 (4A suppl): 52S–56S.
 
14. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 1005–1013.
 
15. Daneshgari F, Kefer JC, Moore C, et al. Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int 2007; 100: 875–879.
 
16. Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17: 493–499.
 
17. Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2010; 21: 1413–1431.
 
18. Brizzolara S, Pillai-Allen A. Risk of mesh erosion with sacral colpopexy and concurrent hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 306–310.
 
19. Visco AG, Weidner AC, Barber MD, et al. Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: 297–302.
 
20. Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199: 688.e1–688.e5.
 
21. Wu JM, Wells EC, Hundley AF, et al. Mesh erosion in abdominal sacral colpopexy with and without concomitant hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1418–1422.
 
22. Kho RM, Akl MN, Cornella JL, et al. Incidence and characteristics of patients with vaginal cuff dehiscence after robotic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2 Pt 1): 231–235.
 
23. Mousa A, Zarei A, Tulandi T. Changing practice from laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy to total hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009; 31: 521–525.
 
24. Mueller A, Renner SP, Haeberle L, et al. Comparison of total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and laparoscopy-assisted supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) in women with uterine leiomyoma. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 144: 76–79.