Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: is the posterior, recto-vaginal, mesh mandatory?

OBJECTIVE(S): The aim of our retrospective study was to determine if systematic placement of a posterior mesh, in addition to an anterior vesico-vaginal mesh, is necessary for laparoscopic treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: A laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy was performed in 108 patients, including 55 patients with a concurrent laparoscopic Burch procedure (50.9%). We compared 33 patients treated with a single anterior mesh (SAM) and 71 treated with a double, anterior and posterior, mesh (DM). RESULTS: The difference between the SAM and DM groups was statistically significant in terms of posterior compartment failure (rectocele and/or enterocele): 31.3% and 5.9%, respectively (p=0.0006). This significant difference persisted in the Burch (B) group (p=0.001), but not in the non-Burch (NB) group (p=0.98). Among the SAM group, this difference between the B and NB groups, was significant (57.1% versus 0%; p=0.0015) and above all not a single posterior failure was observed in the NB group. CONCLUSION(S): The placement of a posterior mesh, if highly effective, appeared unnecessary in the absence of an associated Burch procedure or a patent posterior prolapse. The posterior mesh also increased risk of postoperative complications and side effects.

Complete solo laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the feasibility of "complete solo" (CS) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) performed solely with robotic manipulation of the laparoscope and without any human assistant at all. A comparison was made between CS LRP and the standard technique to identify the advantages and drawbacks. METHODS: Sixteen consecutive patients undergoing CS LRP were compared with the last 16 patients undergoing standard LRP. The standard procedure was performed with five trocars and one human assistant. Therefore, the surgeon had three instruments immediately available and could switch quickly from one to another, while the assistant held the laparoscope and a retractor. The CS method used a voice-controlled robotic arm to manipulate the laparoscope and a mechanical arm for the assisting instrument. RESULTS: The mean operative time in the CS and standard groups was 324 and 347 minutes, respectively (P >0.5). An additional human assistant was required, for 1 hour, in 3 patients of each group. No significant difference was noted between the two groups in terms of catheterization time, hospital stay, positive margin rate, complications, short-term cancer control, or functional results. The CS method has been demonstrated to be highly cost-effective compared with the standard technique. CONCLUSIONS: The CS LRP is feasible and compares favorably with the standard technique. It offers unique advantages in terms of direct control of the operative view, standardization of the assistance, and higher stability of the laparoscope, thus greatly enhancing the surgeon's comfort. The diminished need for human operative assistance provides significant economic and organizational benefits.