Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Techniques for Robotic Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atlas of Single-Port, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery

  • 1639 Accesses

Abstract

Laparoscopic urethropexy was introduced in the early 1990s, and the first robot-assisted sacral colpopexy was reported in 2004. Over the past 10–15 years, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques have been applied to many prolapse and incontinence procedures. After the United States Food and Drug Administration approved its use in gynecologic surgery in 2005, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc.; Sunnyvale, CA) gave gynecologic surgeons another minimally invasive option for surgeries that had been previously performed by laparotomy, vaginally, or by the traditional laparoscopic technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology. 2004;63:373–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:120–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Nosti PA, Umoh U, Kane S, et al. Outcomes of minimally invasive and abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network Study (abstract). Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:S18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, Magtibay PM. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2390–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lim PC, Kang E, Park DH. Learning curve and surgical outcome for robotic-assisted hysterectomy with lymphadenectomy: case-matched controlled comparison with laparoscopy and laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:739–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kho R. Comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopy versus conventional laparoscopy on skill acquisition and performance. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;54:376–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lawson EH, Curet MJ, Sanchez BR, Schuster R, Berguer R. Postural ergonomics during robotic and laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery: a pilot project. J Robot Surg. 2007;1:61–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee EC, Rafiq A, Merrell R, Ackerman R, Dennerlein JT. Ergonomics and human factors in endoscopic surgery: a comparison of manual vs telerobotic simulation systems. Surg Endosc. 2005;19:1064–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berguer R, Smith W. An ergonomic comparison of robotic and laparoscopic technique: the influence of surgeon experience and task complexity. J Surg Res. 2006;134:87–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van der Schatte Olivier RH, Van’t Hullenaar CD, Ruurda JP, Broeders IA. Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1365–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Falabella A, Moore-Jeffries E, Sullivan MJ, Nelson R, Lew M. Cardiac function during steep Trendelenburg position and CO2 pneumoperitoneum for robotic-assisted prostatectomy: a trans-oesophageal Doppler probe study. Int J Med Robot. 2007;3:312–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ogunnaike BO, Jones SB, Jones DB, Provost D, Whitten CW. Anesthetic considerations for bariatric surgery. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:1793–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Danic MJ, Chow M, Alexander G, et al. Anesthesia considerations for robotic-assisted prostatectomy: a review of 1,500 cases. J Robot Surg. 2007;1:119–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Baltayian S. A brief review: anesthesia for robotic prostatectomy. J Robot Surg. 2008;2:59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. London ET, Ho HS, Neuhaus AM, Wolfe BM, Rudich SM, Perez RV. Effect of intravascular volume expansion and renal function during prolonged CO2 pneumoperitoneum. Ann Surg. 2000;231:195–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tekelioglu UY, Erdem A, Demirhan A, Akkaya A, Ozturk S, Bilgi M, et al. The prolonged effect of pneumoperitoneum on cardiac autonomic functions during laparoscopic surgery: are we aware? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2013;17:895–902.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Murdock CM, Wolff AJ, Van Geem T. Risk factors for hypercarbia, subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, and pneumomediastinum during laparoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:704–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Routh JC, Bacon DR, Leibovich BC, Zincke H, Blute ML, Frank I. How long is too long? The effect of the duration of anesthesia on the incidence of non-urological complications after surgery. BJU Int. 2008;102:301–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5.

  20. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frapell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:377–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:360.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, McDonald MA, Shveiky D, Park AJ, Gutman RE, Sokol A. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:158–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Coates K, Low VH, Bump RC, Addison WA. Abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy: a new approach for correction of posterior compartment defects and perineal descent associated with vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:1345–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McDermott CD, Park J, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Laparoscopic sacral colpoperineopexy: abdominal versus abdominal-vaginal posterior graft attachment. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:469–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nosti PA, Lowman JK, Zollinger TW, Hale DS, Woodman PJ. Risk of mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy with concurrent hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:541.e1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Su KC, Mutone MF, Terry CL, Hale DS. Abdominovaginal sacral colpoperineopexy: patient perceptions, anatomical outcomes and graft erosions. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:503–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:688.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Visco AG, Weidner AC, Barber MD, Myers ER, Cundiff GW, Bump RC, Addison WA, et al. Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:297–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Reddy J, Ridgeway B, Gurland B, et al. Robotic sacrocolpoperineopexy with ventral rectopexy for the combined treatment of rectal and pelvic organ prolapse: initial report and technique. J Robot Surg. 2011;5:167–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Wehbe SA, El-Khawand D, Arunachalam D, et al. Comparative outcomes of robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy and sacrocolpoperineopexy. A cohort study (abstract). Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31:261–2.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cullen J, Rosselli JM, Gurland BH. Ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and obstructed defecation. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2012;25:34–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1500–05.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wong MT, Meurette G, Rigaud J, Regenet N, Lehur PA. Robotic versus laparoscopic rectopexy for complex rectocele: a prospective comparison of short-term outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:342–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Slawik S, Soulsby R, Carter H, Payne H, Dixon AR. Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction. Colorectal Dis. 2007;10:138–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sagar PM, Thekkinkattil DK, Heath RM, Woodfield J, Gonsalves S, Landon CR. Feasibility and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for combined vaginal and rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51:1414–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Samaranayake CB, Luo C, Plank AW, Merrie AE, Plank LD, Bissett IP. Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis. 2009;12:504–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Heemskerk J, de Hoog DENM, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Greve JW, Bouvy ND. Robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a comparative study on costs and time. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;50:1825–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. de Hoog DE, Heemskerk J, Nieman FH, van Gemert WG, Baeten CG, Bouvy ND. Recurrence and functional results after open versus conventional laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic rectopexy for rectal prolapse: a case–control study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:1201–6.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Drewes PG, Marinis SI, Schaffer JI, Boreham MK, Corton MM. Vascular anatomy over the superior pubic rami in female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:2165–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pathi SD, Castellanos ME, Corton MM. Variability of the retropubic space anatomy in female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:524.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Khan MS, Challacombe B, Rose K, Dasgupta P. Robotic colposuspension: two case reports. J Endourol. 2007;21:1077–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lapitan MCM, Cody JD. Open retropubic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD002912. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002912.pub5.

  44. Morris AR, Reilly ET, Hassan A, et al. 5–7 year follow up of a randomized trial comparing laparoscopic colposuspension and open colposuspension in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence (abstract). Int Urogynecol J. 2001;12 Suppl 3:S6.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ankardal M, Ekerydh A, Crafoord K, Milsom I, Stjerndahl JH, Engh ME. A randomized trial comparing open Burch colposuspension using sutures with laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh and staples in women with stress urinary incontinence. BJOG. 2004;111:974–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Fatthy H, El Hao M, Samaha I, Abdallah K. Modified Burch colposuspension: laparoscopic versus laparotomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001;8:99–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Stangel-Wojcikiewicz K. Laparoscopic Burch colposuspension compared to laparotomy for treatment of urinary stress incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;27:714 (Abstract).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Su TH, Wang KG, Hsu CY, Wei HJ, Hong BK. Prospective comparison of laparoscopic and traditional colposuspension in the treatment of genuine stress incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1997;76:576–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kitchener HC, Dunn G, Lawton V, Reid F, Nelson L, Smith AR, COLPO Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension—results of a prospective randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:1007–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tuygun C, Bakirtas H, Eroglu M, Alisir I, Zengin K, Imamoglu A. Comparison of two different surgical approaches in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: open and laparoscopic Burch colpopsuspension. Turk Uroloji Dergisi. 2006;32:248–53.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Cheon WC, Mak JH, Liu JY. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic open colposuspension. Hong Kong Med J. 2003;9:10–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Carey MP, Goh JT, Rosamilia A, Cornish A, Gordon I, Hawthorne G, et al. Laparoscopic versus open Burch colposuspension: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:999–1006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ustun Y, Engin-Ustun Y, Gungor M, Tezcan S. Randomized comparison of Burch urethropexy procedures concomitant with gynecologic operations. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2005;59:19–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women’s Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, A-81, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Megan E. Tarr MD, MS & Marie Fidela Paraiso MD

Authors
  1. Megan E. Tarr MD, MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie Fidela Paraiso MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Director of Gynecologic Oncology, Instituto Gyneco-Oncológico Hospital HIMA-Oncologico, Caguas, Puerto Rico, USA

    Pedro F. Escobar

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Women’s Health Institute Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Tommaso Falcone

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tarr, M.E., Paraiso, M.F. (2014). Techniques for Robotic Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery. In: Escobar, P., Falcone, T. (eds) Atlas of Single-Port, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6840-0_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6840-0_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6839-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6840-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation