Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse.
Int Urogynecol J
; 27(4): 593-9, 2016 Apr.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-26514118
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS:
The aim of this study was to compare robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (RLSH) and open sacrohysteropexy (OSH) as a surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).METHODS:
Among 111 consecutive patients who had undergone sacrohysteropexy for POP, surgical outcomes and postoperative symptoms were compared between the RLSH (n = 54; robotic 14 cases and laparoscopic 40 cases) and OSH (n = 57). groups The medical records of enrolled patients were reviewed retrospectively.RESULTS:
Compared with the OSH group, the RLSH group had shorter operating time (120.2 vs 187.5 min, p < 0.0001), less operative bleeding (median estimated blood loss 50 vs 150 ml; p < 0.0001; mean hemoglobin drop 1.4 vs 2.0 g/dl; p < 0.0001), and fewer postoperative symptoms (13 vs 45.6 %; p < 0.0001). Patients' overall satisfaction (94.4 vs 91.2 %; p = 0.717) and required reoperation due to postoperative complications (3.7 vs 1.8 %; p = 0.611) did not differ between groups.CONCLUSIONS:
RLSH could be a feasible and safe procedure in patients with POP and should be considered as a surgical option that allows preservation of the uterus. Prospective randomized trials will permit the evaluation of potential benefits of RLSH as a minimally invasive surgical approach.Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos em Ginecologia
/
Útero
/
Laparoscopia
/
Prolapso de Órgão Pélvico
/
Tratamentos com Preservação do Órgão
/
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos
Tipo de estudo:
Etiology_studies
/
Observational_studies
Limite:
Aged
/
Female
/
Humans
/
Middle aged
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2016
Tipo de documento:
Article