Combined Robotic Ventral Mesh Rectopexy and Sacrocolpopexy for Multicompartmental Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Multispecialty management should be the preferred approach for the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction because there is often multicompartmental prolapse. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of combined robotic ventral mesh rectopexy and either uterine or vaginal fixation for the treatment of multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse at our institution. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTINGS: Tertiary referral academic center. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent a robotic approach and combined procedure and whose cases were discussed at a biweekly pelvic floor multidisciplinary team meeting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative time, intraoperative blood loss and complications, postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification score, length of stay, 30-day morbidity, and readmission. RESULTS: From 2018 to 2021, there were 321 operations for patients with multicompartmental prolapse. The mean age was 63.4 years. The predominant pelvic floor dysfunction was rectal prolapse in 170 cases (60%). Pelvic organ prolapse quantification scores were II in 146 patients (53%), III in 121 patients (44%), and IV in 9 patients (3%); 315 of 323 cases included robotic ventral mesh rectopexy (98%). Sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy was performed in 281 patients (89%). Other procedures included 175 hysterectomies (54%), 104 oophorectomies (32%), 151 sling procedures (47%), 149 posterior repairs (46%), and 138 cystocele repairs (43%). The operative time for ventral mesh rectopexy was 211 minutes and for combined pelvic floor reconstruction was 266 minutes. Average length of stay was 1.6 days. Eight patients were readmitted within 30 days: 1 with a severe headache and 7 with postoperative complications (2.5%), such as pelvic collection and perirectal collection, both requiring radiologic drainage. Four complications required reoperation: epidural abscess, small-bowel obstruction, missed enterotomy requiring resection, and urinary retention requiring sling revision. There were no mortalities. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: A combined robotic approach for multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse is a safe and viable procedure with a relatively low rate of morbidity and no mortality. This is the highest volume series of combined robotic pelvic floor reconstruction in the literature and demonstrates a low complication rate and short length of stay. See Video Abstract . RECTOPEXIA Y SACROCOLPOPEXIA ROBTICA VENTRAL COMBINADAS CON MALLA PARA EL PROLAPSO DE RGANOS PLVICOS MULTICOMPARTIMENTALES: ANTECEDENTES:El tratamiento multiespecializado debe ser el enfoque preferido para el tratamiento de la disfunción del suelo pélvico, ya que a menudo hay prolapso multicompartimental.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la seguridad de la rectopexia robótica combinada con malla ventral y fijación uterina o vaginal para el tratamiento del prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos en nuestra institución.DISEÑO:Análisis retrospectivo.AJUSTES:Centro académico de referencia terciarioPACIENTES:Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a un enfoque robótico y un procedimiento combinado y se discutieron en una reunión quincenal del equipo multidisciplinario sobre el piso pélvico.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Tiempo operatorio, pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y complicaciones. Puntuación de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos posoperatorio, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, morbilidad a 30 días y reingreso.RESULTADOS:De 2018 a 2021, se realizaron 321 operaciones de pacientes con prolapso multicompartimental. La edad media fue 63.4 años. La disfunción del suelo pélvico predominante fue el prolapso rectal en 170 casos (60%). Las puntuaciones de cuantificación del prolapso de órganos pélvicos fueron II en 146 pacientes (53%), III en 121 (44%) y IV en 9 (3%); 315 de los 323 casos incluyeron rectopexia robótica de malla ventral (98%). Se realizó sacrocolpopexia o sacrohisteropexia en 281 pacientes (89%). Otros procedimientos incluyeron 175 histerectomías (54%), 104 ooforectomías (32%), 151 procedimientos de cabestrillo (47%), 149 reparaciones posteriores (46%) y 138 reparaciones de cistocele (43%). El tiempo operatorio para la rectopexia con malla ventral fue de 211 minutos y la reconstrucción combinada del piso pélvico de 266 minutos. La estancia media fue de 1.6 días. Ocho pacientes reingresaron dentro de los 30 días, 1 con dolor de cabeza intenso y 7 pacientes con complicaciones posoperatorias (2.5%): colección pélvica y colección perirrectal, ambas requirieron drenaje radiológico. Cuatro complicaciones requirieron reoperación: absceso epidural, obstrucción del intestino delgado, enterotomía omitida que requirió resección y retención urinaria que requirió revisión del cabestrillo. No hubo mortalidades.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo unicéntrico.CONCLUSIONES:Un enfoque robótico combinado para el prolapso multicompartimental de órganos pélvicos es un procedimiento seguro y viable con una tasa relativamente baja de morbilidad y ninguna mortalidad. Esta es la serie de mayor volumen de reconstrucción robótica combinada del suelo pélvico en la literatura y demuestra una baja tasa de complicaciones y una estancia hospitalaria corta. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez )See Editorial on page 195.

The Impact of Hospital/University Affiliation on Research Productivity Among US-Based Authors in the Fields of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Acute Care, and Emergency General Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Research productivity is critical to academic surgery and essential for advancing surgical knowledge and evidence-based practice. We aim to determine if surgeon affiliation with top US universities/hospitals (TOPS) is associated with increased research productivity measured by numbers of peer-reviewed publications in PubMed (PMIDs). METHODS: A bibliometric analysis was performed for PMIDs. Affiliated authors who published in trauma surgery (TS), surgical critical care (SCC), acute care surgery (ACS), and emergency general surgery (EGS) were evaluated for publications between 2015 and 2019, and lifetime productivity. Our analysis included 3443 authors from 443 different institutions. Our main outcome was PMIDs of first author (FA) and senior author (SA) in each field (2015-2019) and total lifetime publications. RESULTS: Significant differences exist between PMIDs from TOPS vs non-TOPS in FA-TS (1.34 vs 1.23, P = .001), SA-TS (1.71 vs 1.46, P < .001), total SA-PMIDs (44.10 vs 26.61, P < .001), and SA-lifetime PMIDs (90.55 vs 59.03, P < .001). There were no significant differences in PMIDs for FA or SA-SCC, FA or SA-ACS, FA or SA-EGS, FA-total PMIDs 2015-2019, or FA-lifetime PMIDs (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSION: There were significantly higher TS PMIDs among FAs and SAs affiliated with top US institutions in 2015-2019, along with higher total PMIDs (2015-2019) and lifetime PMIDs. These findings are of significance to future graduate medical applicants and academic surgeons who need to make decisions about training and future career opportunities.