World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2013 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Laparoscopic vs Robotic-assisted Sacrocolpopexy

B Lavanya

Citation Information : Lavanya B. Laparoscopic vs Robotic-assisted Sacrocolpopexy. World J Lap Surg 2013; 6 (1):42-46.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1180

Published Online: 01-04-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy has been in vogue since 1993. Robotic technique has started only since 2004.1 In this article both the techniques are reviewed and an attempt is made to discuss the advantages of each.

Objective

Initially, a description of the procedure is given. Then, the article will review the recent published studies on the procedure, patient selection, intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, recovery, postoperative pain, quality of life and economic aspect of sacrocolpopexy performed laparoscopically and robotic assisted and discuss the merits of each.

Materials and methods

Literature review conducted from Google, PubMed, Springer Link, Highwire Press, da Vinci surgery community.

Conclusion

The minimal access approach offers reduced morbidity, shorter hospitalization, and decreased postoperative pain. The disadvantages of the laparoscopic approach compared to open include longer operating time and need for advanced laparoscopic surgical skills including suturing. Robotassisted laparoscopic procedure allows the performance of complex laparoscopic maneuvers with less ergonomic difficulty, and thereby simplifies the complex procedure but is currently expensive.

How to cite this article

Lavanya B. Laparoscopic vs Roboticassisted Sacrocolpopexy. World J Lap Surg 2013;6(1):42-46.


PDF Share
  1. Roboticassisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 2004;63:373-76.
  2. Uterine prolapse. BMJ 2007;335:819.
  3. Vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int 2009;2009:275621.
  4. Supracervical robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JSLS 2010 Oct-Dec;14(4):525-30.
  5. Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:1473-80.
  6. Robotics for pelvic reconstruction. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 2011 Jun 30;6(3):176-81.
  7. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for female genital organ prolapse: Establishment of a learning curve. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biol 2010;149:218-21.
  8. Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: Is the posterior, rectovaginal, mesh mandatory? Eur Urol 2004;45:655-61.
  9. Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol 2009;55:1459-68.
  10. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, hysterectomy and Burch colposuspension: Feasibility and short-term complications of 77 procedures. J Soc Laparoendoscopic Surg 2002;6:115-19.
  11. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with two separate meshes along the anterior and posterior vaginal walls for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004;11:29-35.
  12. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexyin the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: Eight years experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reproductive Biol 2009;146:227-31.
  13. A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: Objective outcome and perioperative differences. Int Urogynecol J 2009;20:273-79.
  14. Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol 2007;86:733-38.
  15. Complete laparoscopic treatment of genital prolapse with meshes including vaginal promontofixation and anterior repair: A series of 138 patients. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:712-18.
  16. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for severe vaginal vault prolapse: Five-year outcome. J Minimally Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:221-26.
  17. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy approach for genitourinary prolapse: Experience with 363 cases. Eur Urol 2005;47:230-36.
  18. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for uterine and post-hysterectomy prolapse: Anatomical results, quality of life and perioperative outcome— a prospective study with 101 cases. Int Urogynecol J 2009;19:1415-22.
  19. Techniques in endourology laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the correction of vaginal vault prolapse. J Endourol 2004;18:620-24.
  20. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: Technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 2009;23:2390-94.
  21. Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): Utilizing POP-quantificationbased staging and outcomes. BJU Int 2007 Oct;100(4):875-79.
  22. Long-term results of robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 2006;176:655-59.
  23. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1201-06.
  24. Robotassisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as management for pelvic organ prolapse. J Endo Urol 2009;23:655-58.
  25. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy. Ther Adv Urol 2010 Oct;2(5-06):195-208.
  26. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2011 Nov;118(5):1005-13.
  27. Robotic sacrocolpopexy: An observational experience at Mayo Clinic, USA. J Gynecol Endosc Surg 2011 Jan-Jun;2(1):53-57.
  28. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol 2012 Jun;30(3):393-98.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.