Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Robotics for Pelvic Reconstruction

  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robotic-assisted laparoscopy is increasingly used in female pelvic reconstructive surgery to combine the benefits of abdominally placed mesh for prolapse outcomes with the quicker recovery time associated with minimally invasive procedures. Level III data suggest that early outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy are similar to those of open sacrocolpopexy. A single randomized trial has provided level I evidence that robotic and laparoscopic approaches to sacrocolpopexy have similar short-term anatomic outcomes, although operating times, postoperative pain, and cost are increased with robotics. Patient satisfaction and long-term outcomes of both robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy are insufficiently studied despite their widespread use in the treatment of prolapse. Given the high reoperative rates for prolapse repairs, long-term follow-up is essential, and well-designed comparative effectiveness research is needed to evaluate pelvic floor surgery adequately.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, ER ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obset Gynecol. 2001;184(7):1496–501. discussion 1501–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(3):437–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. • Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2010;(4):004014. This 2010 systematic Cochrane review provides levels of evidence for most current practice regarding options for surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. It should help guide reconstructive surgeons when they are selecting treatments.

  7. Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1996;175(6):1418–21. discussion 1421–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Maher CF, Qatwneh A, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter P. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. A prospective randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:20–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lo TS, Wang AC. Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison. J Gyn Surg. 1998;14(2):59–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Geller EJ. Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1201–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;5:192(5):1752–8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nygaard I, Chai TC, Cundiff GW, DeLancey JO, FitzGerald MP, Heit M, et al. Summary of research recommendatiosn from the Inaugural American Urogynecologic Society Research Summit. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):4–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pham T, Kenton K, Mueller E, Brubaker L. New pelvic symptoms are common after reconstructive pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(1):88.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Chapple C, et al. Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam. 2010;29(1):213–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Visco AG, Advincula AP. Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1369–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Elliott DS, Frank I, Dimarco DS, Chow GK. Gynecologic use of robotically assisted laparoscopy: sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high-grade vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Surg. 2004;188(4A Suppl):52S–6S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology. 2004;63(2):373–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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(2):655–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Daneshgari F, Kefer JC, Moore C, Kaouk J. Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int. 2007;100(4):875–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bump R, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Klarskov P, Smith ARB, Brubaker L, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obset Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Paraiso M, Chen C, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Barber MD. Conventional laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16(5):S58.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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 12;199(6):688.e1-688.e5.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bensinger G, Lind L, Guess M, Winkler HA. Abdominal sacral suspensions: analysis of complications using permanent mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(6):2094–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2011;22(2):205–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco AG, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1557–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco A, Weber AM, Cundiff GW, et al. Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(1):49–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. • Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Havrilevsky LJ, Wu JM. Cost analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4)493–9. This thorough decision analysis compared cost data among robotic, laparoscopic, and open sacrocolpopexies using two models. Both demonstrated that robotic sacrocolpopexy is associated with higher costs than the other routes of surgery.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Patel M, O’Sullivan D, Tulikangas PK. A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(2):223–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, Schaer G. Robotic hysterectomy versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: outcome and cost analyses of a matched case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150(1):92–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Routh JC, Bacon DR, Leibovich BC, Zincke H, Blute ML, Frank I. How long is too long? The effect of the duration of anaesthesia on the incidence of non-urological complications after surgery. BJU Int. 2008;102(3):301–4. Epub 2008 Apr 11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Culligan PJ, Blackwell L, Goldsmith LJ, Graham CA, Rogers A, Heit MH. A randomized controlled trial comparing fascia lata and synthetic mesh for sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(1):29–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connoly A, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2004;104(4):805–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. George A, Eisenstein D, Wegienka G. Effect of body mass index on robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(3):328–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nawfal AK, Orady M, Eisenstein D, Wegienka G. Effect of body mass index on robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(3):328–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Melamud O, Eichel L, Turbow B, Shanberg A. Laparoscopic vesicovaginal fistula repair with robotic reconstruction. Urology. 2005;65(1):163–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sundaram BM, Kalidasan G, Hemal AK. Robotic repair of vesicovaginal fistula: case series of five patients. Urology. 2006;67(5):970–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Patil NN, Mottrie A, Sundaram B, Patel VR. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation with psoas hitch: a multi-institutional, multinational evaluation. Urology. 2008;72(1):47–50. discussion 50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Laungani R, Patil N, Krane LS, Hemal AK, Raja S, Bhandari M, et al. Robotic-assisted ureterovaginal fistula repair: report of efficacy and feasiblity. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2008;18(5):731–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schimpf MO, Wagner JR. Robot-assisted laparoscopic distal ureteral surgery. JSLS. 2009;13(1):44–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Dr. Kenton has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering.

Disclosure

Dr. Kenton has served as a consultant for Intuitive Surgical. Dr. Ramm reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 South First Avenue, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA

    Olga Ramm & Kimberly Kenton

  2. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Urology, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, 2160 South First Avenue, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA

    Olga Ramm & Kimberly Kenton

Authors
  1. Olga Ramm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly Kenton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimberly Kenton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramm, O., Kenton, K. Robotics for Pelvic Reconstruction. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 6, 176–181 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-011-0099-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-011-0099-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation