Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Robotic sacrocolpopexy

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common cause of gynecological disease in elderly women. The prevalence of POP has increased with an aging society. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) is safer and more effective than the vaginal approach in patients with apical compartment POP because it has a higher anatomical cure rate, a lower recurrence rate, less dyspareunia, and improved sexual function. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has replaced ASC. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) also helps overcome the challenges of LSC by facilitating deep pelvic dissection and multiple intracorporeal suturing. The RSC is technically easy to apply, has a steep learning curve, and offers many advantages over the LSC. However, insufficient data led us to conclude that the LSC is superior overall, especially in terms of costeffectiveness. The present review provides insights into different aspects of RSC, highlighting the most common benefits and concerns of this procedure. We searched for eligible articles discussing this issue from January 2019 to March 2022 to reveal the outcomes of RSC.

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy

Minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy (SC) is the treatment of choice for symptomatic, high-grade, apical or multi-compartmental pelvic organ prolapse (POP), in terms of anatomical correction and treatment durability. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) could be an attractive alternative to the gold standard laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), for its ergonomic advantages in such a technically demanding procedure. However, it has not yet proven its superiority, consequently raising cost-effectiveness issues. Our primary objective was to assess if RASC can achieve better overall operative time (OOT) over LSC, with at least equivalent perioperative results. This was a single-center retrospective study including 100 patients (58 consecutive RASC cases and 42 LSC within the same time-period), with primary endpoint the OOT in both groups. Secondary results included complication rate, hospital stay, short-term anatomic results and OOT within and beyond the RASC learning curve. A multivariate linear regression was carried out for our primary outcome. The groups had comparable characteristics, except for BMI, which was lower in RASC group. The mean OOT was significantly lower in the RASC group (188 vs. 217 min, p ≤ 0.01), even after adjusting for possible confounders. Short-term anatomic results, complication rate, and blood loss were similar in the two groups. Mean hospital stay was significantly longer in the RASC group. Average RASC OOT was significantly shorter after the first 20 cases realized. This study demonstrated a significant reduction of OOT for RASC compared to LSC, with similar perioperative results, encouraging further use of the robotic technology for this indication.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic floor surgery: Review

Minimally invasive surgical techniques have become more common in pelvic floor reconstructive urogynaecological surgery, specifically, robotic-assisted pelvic floor surgery. Female pelvic floor anatomy is complex, and some repairs require highly experienced surgical skills that can be gained more easily using robotic-assisted surgery. A common application of the robotic platform in urogynaecological surgeries includes sacrocolpopexy, which has become the gold standard approach in the last decade for the correction of apical prolapse. Additional procedures include sacrohysteropexy, sacrocervicopexy, fistula repair, and complex procedures involving the bladder and other pelvic organs. Despite its increasing use and clear benefit in our field, data in the literature and, in particular, randomised controlled trials are sparse. This review provides an update, incorporating recently published literature and our personal experience in that field.

Robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy vs robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in women with primary advanced apical prolapse: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the anatomic and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy (RASH) against robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) for the treatment of primary advanced apical prolapse.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all robot-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgeries for primary advanced apical prolapse (stage ≥II) between January 2011 and May 2021 at an academic tertiary hospital. Surgical outcomes and pelvic organ function were evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative (POP-Q) stage and validated questionnaires (POPDI-6) during preoperative and postoperative 12-month follow-up evaluations. All data were obtained from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 2368 women underwent surgery for apical prolapse repair, and 18 women underwent either RASH (n = 11) or RASC (n = 7). Compared to the RASC group, the RASH group was significantly younger, premenopausal, and less parous. Preoperative prolapse stage, operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospitalization length was comparable between the groups. No intraoperative complications were observed. All women had a median follow-up duration of 24 months (range: 12-108 months). During the 12-month follow-up period, women in the RASH group reported higher satisfaction with the surgery than those in the RASC group (100% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.137). The mesh exposure rate was significantly higher in the RASC group (3/7, 42.9%) than in the RASH group (0/11, 0%) ( p = 0.043), which was found at 12 to 36 months postoperatively and was successfully managed with vaginal estrogen cream. In the RASH group, one woman required reoperation with anterior colporrhaphy for recurrent anterior prolapse at 60 months postoperatively. The apical success rate was 100% at one year postoperatively, without apical recurrence in either group during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

RASH represents an effective and feasible option for the surgical treatment of advanced primary apical prolapse in women who desire uterine preservation and have a significantly lower risk of mesh erosion than RASC.

HUGO(TM) RAS System in urogynaecology: the first nerve sparing Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Background: Minimally invasive sacral colpopexy is considered the gold standard for surgical treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), combining high success rates with low recurrence risk in comparison to other techniques. This is the first case of robotic sacral colpopexy (RSCP) performed with the innovative Hugo™ RAS robotic system. Objectives: The aim of this article is to show the surgical steps of a nerve sparing RSCP performed with the new Hugo™ RAS robotic system (Medtronic), by also evaluating the feasibility of this technique using this novel Robotic System. Materials and methods: A 50-year-old Caucasian woman with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP-Q): Aa: +2, Ba: +3, C: +4, D: +4, Bp: -2, Ap: -2 , TVL:10 GH: 3,5 BP:3 underwent RSCP as well as a subtotal hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, using the new surgical robot Hugo™ RAS in the Division of Urogynaecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. Main outcome measures: Intraoperative data, docking specifics, objective and subjective outcomes at three months follow up. Results: Surgical procedure was carried out without intra-operative complications, operative time (OT) was 150 minutes, docking time was 9 minutes. No system errors or faults in the robotic arms were registered. Urogynaecological examination at three months follow up showed a complete resolution of the prolapse. Conclusion: RSCP using the Hugo™ RAS system seems to be a feasible and effective approach according to results in terms of operative time, cosmetic results, postoperative pain and length of hospitalisation. Large number of case reports as well as longer follow up are mandatory to better define its benefits, advantages, and costs.

Contemporary Use and Techniques of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy With or Without Robotic Assistance for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without robotic assistance is an effective approach for the treatment of any pelvic organ prolapse when apical involvement is present.

The past 4 years have been consequential in the world of surgery to correct pelvic organ prolapse. In 2018, results of a large, multicenter randomized trial demonstrated very disappointing cure rates of traditional native tissue repairs at 5 years or more. In 2019, a vaginal mesh hysteropexy kit was removed from the market by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only to subsequently demonstrate it provided better cure rates and similar risk profile to vaginal hysterectomy plus native tissue repair in its own 5-year study published in 2021. Meanwhile, the use and techniques of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without robotic assistance have evolved such that it is commonly adapted to treat all support defects for patients with uterovaginal or posthysterectomy prolapse. This article is intended to provide an overview of the contemporary use and techniques of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy based on the evidence and our clinical experience.

An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for managing pelvic organ prolapse

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is considered as the gold standard treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Sacrocolpopexy can be performed using open (OSC), laparoscopic (LSC), and robotic-assisted (RSC) approaches. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes between these three approaches for managing pelvic organ prolapse by conducting a systematic review and network meta-analysis. A systematic search was performed in different databases from their earliest records to April 2021 with no restriction on languages. Only randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes between OSC, LSC, and RSC were included in this study. A total of 6 studies with 486 participants were included in this study. Operative time was significantly shorter in OSC than in RSC and LSC. The probability rank showed less estimated blood loss in RSC and lowest overall postoperative complications in LSC. Probability scores also showed best anatomical outcomes for postoperative points C and Bp in RSC and for point Ba in LSC. Despite significantly longer operative time, RSC and LSC may provide better anatomical outcomes, less estimated blood loss, and less overall postoperative complications than OSC. However, this study did not find significant differences between RSC and LSC in efficacy and safety.

Robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a review of current literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recently, robotic sacrocolpopexy has become the gold standard for treating genital prolapse. Despite this, there is still much interest in this procedure, and many questions remain unanswered. This review focuses on the most critical articles on this issue that have been published in the last 2 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

A summary of 23 articles is provided. There were no differences in total postoperative complications, postoperative stress incontinence, mesh erosion, and the success of the two surgical techniques in long-term investigations. Obesity modestly increases robotic approach difficulty and does not raise the mesh erosion rate or prolapse recurrence rate. Ultra-light and preprepared meshes with alternative fixation techniques can be applied with these procedures. Another emerging trend is alternative robotic approaches and the use of single-port surgery.

SUMMARY

For women with pelvic organ prolapse, especially the elderly and obese, robotic sacrocolpopexy is well tolerated and effective. Despite highly restricted and heterogeneous data, recent investigations have included single incision methods and new mesh/fixation materials. Randomized trials with large sample size and excellent quality are necessary before the practical implementation of new techniques.