Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstruction: review and own experience


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the most common urogynecological disease in women of middle and older age groups. This disease causes numerous urogenital symptoms and significantly reduces the quality of life of patients. Surgical correction of POP is the optimal method f treatment for this category of patients, however, the choice of surgery and access remains controversial. In recent decades, thanks to the development of robotic technologies, the use of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RAS) has become increasingly popular. Numerous studies have shown the equivalence of results compared with the «gold standard» repair of prolapse - open sacrocolpopexy. This article presents a review of the current literature and our own experience of RAS.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

S. O Sukhikh

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: docsukhikh@gmail.com
Ph.D. student of the Department of Urology

K. B Kolontarev

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: kb80@yandex.ru
Dr.Med.Sci., Professor at the Department of Urology

A. O Vasilyev

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: alexvasilyev@me.com
PhD, Assistant at the Department of Urology

D. Yu Pushkar

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Corr.-Member of the RAS, Dr.Med.Sci., Prof., Head of the Department of Urology

References

  1. Wu J.M., Hu«dley A.F., Fulto« R.G., et al. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278-1283.
  2. Shull B.L., Be«« S.J., Kuehl T.J. Surgical management of prolapse of the anterior vaginal segment: an analysis of support defects, operative morbidity, and anatomic outcome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1994;171:1329-1336.
  3. Nussler E., Kesmodel U.S., Lofgre« M., et al. Operation for primary cystocele with anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes. Int. Urogynecology J. 2015;26(3):359-366.
  4. Maher C., Fei«er B, Baessler K., et al. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD012376.
  5. Wu J.M., Hu«dley A.F., Fulto« R.G., et al. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278-1283.
  6. Shull B.L., Be«« S.J., Kuehl T.J. Surgical management of prolapse of the anterior vaginal segment: an analysis of support defects, operative morbidity, and anatomic outcome. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1994;171:1329-1336.
  7. Nussler E., Kesmodel U.S., Lofgre« M., et al. Operation for primary cystocele with anterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes. Int. Urogynecology J. 2015;26(3):359-366.
  8. Nygaard I.E., McCreery R., Brubaker L., et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805-823.
  9. Grimes C.L., Lukacz E.S., Ga«tz M.G., et al. What happens to the posterior compartment and bowel symptoms after sacrocolpopoexy? Evaluation of 5-year outcomes from E- Care. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2014;20(5):261-266.
  10. Govorov A.V., Vasilyev A.O., Kolontarev K.B., Pushkar D.Yu. Robotic technologies in urology. Consilium medicum. 2014; 7:5-7. Russian
  11. Vasiliev A.O., Govorov A.V., Dyakov V.V., Rasner P.I., Kolontarev K.B., Maltsev E.G., Pushkar D.Yu. Modern possibilities of robotic technologies: the experience of the urology clinic at MSUMD. Pharmatec. Special issue. 2016; s1-16:44-47. Russian
  12. Maher C.F., Qatawneh A.M., Dwyer P.L., et al. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004;190(1):20-26.
  13. Braun H.F., Fernandez M., Dell’Oro A., et al. Prospective randomized study to compare colposacropexy and Mayo McCall technique in correction of severe genital central prolapse (abstract). Int. Urogynecology J. 2007;18.
  14. Wang L.C., Awamlh B.A., Hu J.C., et al. Trends in Mesh Use for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair from the Medicare Database. Urology. 2015;86(5):885-891.
  15. Lane F.E. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 1962;20:72-77.
  16. Tan J.S., Lukacz E.S., Menefee S.A., et al. Determinants of vaginal length. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1846-1850.
  17. Freeman R.M., Pantazis K., Thomson A., et al. A randomized controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int. Urogynecology J. 2013;24(3):377-384.
  18. Geller E.J., Siddiqui N.Y., Wu J.M., et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacral colpopexy compared with abdominal sacral colpopexy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1201-1206.
  19. Nosti P.A., Umoh U., Kane S., et al. Outcomes of minimally invasive and Abdominal sacral colpopexy: a Fellows' Pelvic Research Network Study (abstract). Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2012;18.
  20. Ramm O., Kenton K. Robotics for Pelvic Reconstruction. Current bladder dysfunction reports. 2011;6(3):176-181.
  21. Daneshgari F., Paraiso M.F., Kaouk J., Govier F.E., Kozlowski P.M., Kobashi K.C. Robotic and laparoscopic female pelvic floor reconstruction. BJU Int. 2006;98(Suppl. 1):62-68.
  22. Fox S.D., Stanton S.L. Vault prolapse and rectocele: assessment of repair using sacrocolpopexy with mesh interposition. BJOG. 2000;107(11):1371-1375.
  23. Brown B.N., Mani D., Nolf A.L., et al. Characterization of the host inflammatory response following implantation of prolapse mesh in rhesus macaque. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015;213(5):668.
  24. Propst K., Tunitsky137Bitton E., Schimpf M.O., et al. Pyogenic spondylodiscitis associated with sacral colpopexy and rectopexy: report of two cases and evaluation of the literature. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014;25(1):21-31.
  25. Anand M., Woelk J.L., Weaver A.L., et al. Perioperative complications of robotic sacrocolpopexy for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014;25(9):1193-200.
  26. Paraiso M.F., Jelovsek J.E., et al. Laparoscopic Compared With Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse. Obstetrics & gynecology. 2011 ; 118 : 1005-1013.
  27. Serati M., Bogani G., Sorice P., et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 2014; 66(2):303-318.
  28. Paraiso M.F., Jelovsek J.E., Frick A., et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacral colpopexy for vaginal prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005-1013.
  29. Clifton M.M., Goldman H.B. Erosion of prolene sutures into the bladder after abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2015;26(12):187-156.
  30. Elliott D.S., Chow G.K., Gettman M. Current status of robotics in female urology and gynecology. World J. Urol. 2006;24(2):188-192.
  31. Germain A., Thibault F., Galifet M., et al. Long-term outcomes after totally robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Surg. Endosc. 2013;27(2):525-529.
  32. Chan S.S., Pang S.M., Cheung T.H., Cheung R.Y., Chung T.K. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance. Hong Kong Med. J. 2011;17(1):54-60.
  33. Siddiqui N.Y., Geller E.J., Visco A.G. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012;206(5):435.
  34. Seror J., Yates D.R., Seringe E., et al. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J. Urol. 2012;30(3):393-398.
  35. Tan-Kim J., Menefee S.A., Luber K.M., Nager C.W., Lukacz E.S. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2011;17(1):44-49.
  36. Antosh D.D., Grotzke S.A., McDonald M.A., et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(3): 158-161.
  37. Awad N., Mustafa S., Amit A., et al. Implementation ofa new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2013;287(6):1181-1186.
  38. Popov A.A. et al. Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sakrocolpoppeksy. Functional results. Archive of Obstetrics and Gynecology, V.F. Snegireva. 2016 ; 4:44-45. Russian

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies