scholarly journals Robotic Sacrocolpopexy and Sacrocervicopexy for the Correction of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Robot Surgery ◽  
10.5772/6899 ◽  
2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C ◽  
Michael D ◽  
James C
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175628721986859
Author(s):  
Annah Vollstedt ◽  
William Meeks ◽  
Veronica Triaca

Background: Our aim was to investigate longer-term surgical and quality of life (QOL) outcomes in a cohort of women undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALS) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a single institution of female patients undergoing RALS with and without concomitant robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy, urethral sling, and rectocele repair. Scores from the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) surveys were used to evaluate QOL outcomes. Clinical improvement was defined by a decrease in a patient’s PFDI and PFIQ postoperative score by ⩾70%. Results: Clinical improvement was seen in 62.6% by the PFIQ and in 64% by the PFDI survey. Younger patient age (OR 0.92, p = 0.011) and worse preoperative American Urological Association (AUA) Quality of Life score (OR 1.42, p = 0.046) were associated with clinical improvement. Within the PFIQ, 35.6% of patients saw clinical improvement with their bowel symptoms, compared with bladder (54.1%, p < 0.001) and prolapse (45.6%, p = 0.053) symptoms. Within the PFDI, 45.5% of patients reached clinical improvement with their bowel symptoms, compared with bladder (56.7%, p = 0.035) and prolapse (62.6%, p < 0.001) symptoms. Of the patients who had a rectocele repair, 46.3% reached clinical improvement in their CRADI-8 score, and 51% saw clinical improvement in the bowel portion of the PDFI. Conclusions: Significantly fewer patients reached clinical improvement within the portions of the surveys that focus on bowel symptoms, compared with symptoms related to urination and POP. Of those that had a concomitant rectocele repair, approximately half reached clinical improvement with their bowel symptoms.


2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 525-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Germain ◽  
F. Thibault ◽  
M. Galifet ◽  
M.-L. Scherrer ◽  
A. Ayav ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 74 (7) ◽  
pp. 403-404
Author(s):  
Benjamin C. Smith ◽  
Catrina C. Crisp ◽  
Steven D. Kleeman ◽  
Eunsun Yook ◽  
Rachel N. Pauls

Author(s):  
Kamil Gökhan Şeker ◽  
Emre Sam ◽  
Yusuf Arıkan ◽  
Ahmet Hacıislamoğlu ◽  
Abdulmuttalip Şimşek ◽  
...  

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the results of our minimally invasive (laparoscopic and robotic) sacrocolpopexy operations in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Materials and Methods: Demographic characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative data of 15 patients for whom we applied laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexy due to symptomatic Grade 2 or higher apical POP based on POP-Q classification between September 2014 and September 2018. Treatment success was defined as Grade 0 or 1 POP in POP examination in the final surveillance. Results: Mean age of the patients was 60.4 ± 8.3 (49-82) years. Four patients (26.7%) were operated using robotic and eleven patients (73.3%) using laparoscopic methods. Uterus conservative surgery was applied in all patients excluding one. Mean operative time was 183.3 ± 21.4 (145-220) minutes and mean hospital stay of the patients was 2.8 ± 0.7 (2-4) days. Intraoperative and postoperative complications developed in a total of two patients (13.3%). Mean duration of follow-up was calculated as 12.1 ± 4.8 (8-24) months. De novo urgency urinary incontinence developed in two patients and stress incontinence in one patient. Based on the physical examination in the follow-ups, 14 patients (93.3%) had Grade 0 and one patient had (6.7%) asymptomatic Grade 2 anterior POP. Conclusion: Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy is an efficient and safe surgical option for prolapse repair in symptomatic advanced stage POP cases.


2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 531-536
Author(s):  
Dmitry Y. Pushkar ◽  
George R. Kasyan ◽  
Alexander A. Popov

2011 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesús Moreno Sierra ◽  
Elena Ortiz Oshiro ◽  
Cristina Fernandez Pérez ◽  
Isabel Galante Romo ◽  
Javier Corral Rosillo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document