Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard procedure for treating pelvic organ prolapse (POP) patients with apical defects. Different surgical approaches have emerged and been utilized successively, including traditional laparoscopy, single-hole laparoscopy, robotic laparoscopy, vaginal-assisted laparoscopy, and transvaginal approaches. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has attracted increasing attention as an emerging surgical technique and has unique advantages, such as a "simulated wrist" mechanical arm and high-definition three-dimensional (3D) visual field, which has gradually begun to be utilized in the clinical setting. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist, and a systematic literature search was conducted on six databases from their inception to 1st March 2020. We evaluated patients with POP who underwent RSC or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), outcomes (including perioperative outcomes: blood loss, operating times, blood transfusion, and hospital stay), surgery-related complications, as well as cure and recurrence rates. RESULTS: A total of 49 articles were available, including 3,014 patients, among which 18 were comparative studies on LSC vs. RSC, and 31 were non-comparative single-arm studies on RSC. For RSC, median operative time was 226 [90-604] minutes, estimated blood loss was 56 [5-1,500] mL, and hospital stay was 1.55 [1-16] days. Intraoperative complications and postoperative complications occurred in 74 (2.7%) and 360 (13.0%) patients, respectively. Of 2,768 RSC patients, 40 had been converted from a robot-assisted approach to other approaches, and 134 of 1,852 patients (7.2%) have recurrent prolapses of any compartment. Compared to LSC, RSC was associated with significantly lower blood loss and lower conversion rate. However, more operative time was observed in RSC. No significant differences were observed in perioperative transfusion, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or objective recurrence between RSC and LSC. CONCLUSIONS: RSC's application seems to contribute some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to promote equivalent clinical outcomes. Notably, heterogeneity among studies might have affected the outcome of the study. Consequently, high-quality and large-sample randomized trials comparing both techniques are necessitated.

Lower urinary tract function improves after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for elderly patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is relatively common in the elderly population. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has been reported by several studies to be a less invasive treatment option as compared to open sacrocolpopexy. However, almost all prior reports focused on the complications or surgical obstacles. The present study was designed to examine POP patients of all ages and assess lower urinary tract function before and after LSC. METHODS: This retrospective study examined the results of LSC performed in POP patients. Urodynamic studies were performed pre- and postoperatively in 50 patients, with the subjects divided into two groups containing those less than and those older than 65 years of age. We performed a pressure flow study. We examined bladder functions by evaluating bladder capacity, detrusor pressure at maximum flow (PdetQmax), maximum flow rate (Qmax), normal desire to void, strong desire to void, voided volume, and postvoid residual volume (PVR). Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Values of P < .05 were considered significant. RESULTS: With regard to the pressure-flow study parameters, there was a significant increase in the normal desire to void and bladder capacity only in the ≥65 age group. After the operation, there was a significant increase in the mean postoperative Qmax and voided volume, while there was a significant decrease in the PdetQmax and PVR as compared to the preoperative values only in the ≥65 age group. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that in elderly patients with POP, LSC might be a valid option with regard to potentially regaining urinary tract function.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy for coexisting pelvic organ prolapse and external rectal prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) POP is defined as the protrusion of pelvic organs from the vaginal canal. POP often coexists with internal rectal prolapse or external rectal prolapse (ERP). A series of patients with coexisting POP and ERP who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) combined with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) are reported here. METHODS: Seven patients underwent LVR and LSC together. Fecal incontinence was assessed by the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), constipation was assessed by the Constipation Scoring System (CSS), and urinary incontinence was assessed by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF). Anatomical disorders were assessed by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and defecography. RESULTS: The patients' median age was 81 (60-88) years. The median operative time was 380 (282-430) minutes. The median postoperative hospital stay was 3 (1-5) days. There were no postoperative complications. The FISI, CSS, POP-Q, and defecography findings improved postoperatively; however, the ICIQ-SF deteriorated in 2 of 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: LVR combined with LSC for coexisting POP and ERP is feasible.