Robotic Sacrocolpopexy—Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse?

Surgical Treatment of Enlarged Cervical Leiomyoma with Concomitant Uterine Prolapse: A Case Report

This case report details the surgical treatment of a rare enlarged cervical leiomyoma with uterine prolapse in a 48-year-old woman. She presented to Konyang University Hospital with a palpable vaginal mass, lower abdominal pain, and urinary incontinence. Despite being nulliparous, she had severe chronic constipation due to schizophrenia medication and lived in a health care facility separated from her family. Pelvic examination revealed stage 3 uterine prolapse with a large necrotic cervical leiomyoma. A robot-assisted vaginal hysterectomy followed by sacrocolpopexy was performed using the Da Vinci Xi Surgical System. Histopathology confirmed cervical leiomyoma with squamous metaplasia. At a three-month follow-up, there were no complications, pelvic anatomy was restored, and urinary incontinence improved. Although the patient had a systemic infection due to the necrotic cervical leiomyoma, raising concerns about the increased risk of infection associated with mesh use, she was high-risk for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence due to her medical history and living situation. Therefore, she underwent concurrent surgeries with pre- and postoperative antibiotic treatment, and recovered without complications. Given that the risk of developing POP increases after a hysterectomy, in high-risk patients, as demonstrated in this case, the concurrent surgical correction of POP may be an effective strategy.

Outcomes of Prophylactic Mid-Urethral Sling at the Time of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) with and without concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement for prophylaxis or treatment of preoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients without prior incontinence procedures who underwent RSC with or without MUS placement by 3 surgeons (JA, LA, KE) at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Patients had a MUS placed for either documented SUI or prophylaxis of SUI. We compared patient characteristics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and complications between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were identified. 58 (43%) had a MUS placed for documented SUI, 43 (32%) had prophylactic MUS, and 33 (25%) did not have a MUS placed. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the 3 groups. Patients who did not have a MUS placed had less estimated blood loss (76.4 vs 63.8 vs 36.9 mL, P = .018) but no difference in operative time (P = .408), length of stay (P = .427), or postoperative urinary retention (P = .988). A total of 4 (7%) patients who had a MUS placed for SUI had persistent SUI postoperatively. There were 2 (5%) patients who had a MUS placed prophylactically and 4 (12%) patients who did not have a MUS that developed de novo SUI.

CONCLUSION

In this series, we demonstrate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic MUS placement at the time of RSC. Randomized studies evaluating concomitant prophylactic sling at time of robotic sacrocolpopexy could further guide preoperative patient counseling and decision-making.

The current status of sacrocolpopexy in the management of apical prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a prevalent condition that negatively affects women' s quality of life. There is growing recognition that adequate support for the vaginal apex is an important component of a durable surgical repair for women with advanced prolapse, including the anterior and posterior wall prolapse. Surgical treatment options include abdominal and vaginal approaches, the former of which can be performed open, laparoscopically, and robotically. Sacrocolpopexy is a common procedure designed for the treatment of prolapse including uterine or vaginal vault prolapse and multiple-compartment prolapse. Although traditionally performed as an open abdominal procedure, minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy, whether laparoscopic or robotic, has been successfully performed in the clinical practice by many pelvic reconstructive surgeons. In order to require an outstanding cosmetic result, transumbilical/transvaginal single-port sacrocolpopexy has been developed to achieve the goal and initial outcomes have demonstrated their efficacy, safety and feasibility. However, up to date, there are many variations to these procedures, with different levels of evidence to support each of them. Herein we reviewed the current literatures on current surgical choices for women with apical prolapse.

Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: Strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes

There are a variety of surgical management strategies to help surgeons repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Surgical treatment for POP includes native tissue repair, augmentation with mesh, and minimally invasive surgeries. Currently, laparoscopic or robotic techniques for POP repair are increasing in popularity and continuing to evolve. The aim of this review is to present an up-to-date review of surgical techniques used for POP repair and to discuss ways to optimize surgical outcomes.

Surgery for Apical Vaginal Prolapse After Hysterectomy: Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy

The number of surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States is increasing. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy has become the gold standard for women desiring a restorative repair of their apical pelvic organ prolapse. Despite the associated morbidity of abdominal sacrocolpopexy, advances in minimally invasive approaches have safely increased the number of these surgeries performed, especially among urologists. Moreover, a number of studies have demonstrated superior objective outcomes after abdominal sacrocolpopexy when compared with vaginal approaches. Variations in the technique are described, but no consensus exists on a standard approach.