Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature

Minimal Invasive Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy and Abdominal Lateral Suspension: A Prospective, Open-Label, Multicenter, Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Abdominal minimally invasive surgery has become increasingly prominent for the treatment of prolapse. Abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) is the gold standard for the treatment of advanced apical prolapse; however, alternative surgical approaches such as the abdominal lateral suspension (ALS) have been developed to improve patient outcomes. This study aims to determine whether ALS improves outcomes compared to ASC in multicompartmental prolapse patients.

METHODS

A prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority trial was conducted in 360 patients who underwent ASC or ALS for the treatment of apical prolapse. The primary outcome was anatomical and symptomatic cure of the apical compartment at 1-year follow-up; secondary outcomes included prolapse recurrence, re-operation rate, and post-operative complications. A 300-patient cohort was subdivided into 200-patients who underwent ALS and 100-patients who underwent ASC. The confidence interval method was used to calculate the p-value of non-inferiority.

RESULTS

At the 12-months follow-up, the objective cure rate of the apical defect was 92% for ALS and 94% for ASC (recurrence rates were 8% and 6%, respectively, and the p-value for non-inferiority was <0.01). The mMesh complication rates were 1% and 2% for ALS and ASC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the ALS technique is not inferior to the gold standard ASC for the surgical treatment of apical prolapse.

Robotic-assisted Gynecological Surgery in Older Patients - a Comparative Cohort Study of Perioperative Outcomes

Study design Because of current demographic developments, a hypothesis was proposed whereby older female patients aged > 65 years can be safely operated using minimally invasive, robotic-assisted surgery, despite having more preoperative comorbidities. A comparative cohort study was designed to compare the age group ≥ 65 years (older age group, OAG) with the age group < 65 years (younger age group, YAG) after robotic-assisted gynecological surgery (RAS) in two German centers. Patients and methods Consecutive RAS procedures performed between 2016 and 2021 at the Women's University Hospital of Jena and the Robotic Center Eisenach to treat benign or oncological indications were included in the study. The age groups were compared according to their preoperative comorbidities (ASA, Charlson comorbidity index [CCI], cumulative illness rating scale - geriatric version [CIRS-G]) and perioperative parameters such as Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification of surgical complications. Analysis was performed using Welch's t -test, chi ² test, and Fisher's exact test. Results A total of 242 datasets were identified, of which 63 (73 ± 5 years) were OAG and 179 were YAG (48 ± 10 years). Patient characteristics and the percentage of benign or oncological indications did not differ between the two age groups. Comorbidity scores and the percentage of obese patients were higher in the OAG group: CCI (2.7 ± 2.0 vs. 1.5 ± 1.3; p < 0.001), CIRS-G (9.7 ± 3.9 vs. 5.4 ± 2.9; p < 0.001), ASA class II/III (91.8% vs. 74.1%; p = 0.004), obesity (54.1% vs. 38.2%; p = 0.030). There was no difference between age groups, even grouped for benign or oncological indications, with regard to perioperative parameters such as duration of surgery (p = 0.088; p = 0.368), length of hospital stay (p = 0.786; p = 0.814), decrease in Hb levels (p = 0.811; p = 0.058), conversion rate (p = 1.000; p = 1.000) and CD complications (p = 0.433; p = 0.745). Conclusion Although preoperative comorbidity was higher in the group of older female patients, no differences were found between age groups with regard to perioperative outcomes following robotic-assisted gynecological surgery. Patient age is not a contraindication for robotic gynecological surgery.

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: an international Delphi study of expert users

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion.

METHODS

We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons' characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis.

RESULTS

The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.

Advanced Cystocele is a Risk Factor for Surgical Failure Following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP) and to identify risk factors for surgical failure and long term complications in patients at high risk for surgical failure.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A university hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty-seven women with pelvic organ prolapse at high risk for surgical failure.

INTERVENTIONS

RALSCP from November 2012 to July 2020.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Information was collected from the electronic medical records. Pre-operative and post-operative assessment included a urogynecologic history, prolapse staging, cough stress test, and validated quality of life questionnaires. Anatomical success was defined as POP stage less than 2 at last follow-up. Mean follow-up was 24.6 ± 17.9 months. Sixteen women (23.9%) reported bulge symptoms at the latest follow-up; upon POP-Q staging, surgical failure or recurrence was observed in 35 (52.2%) patients. On multiple logistic regression analysis, a pre-operative POP-Q point Ba measurement ≥ 3 cm beyond the hymen was independently related to surgical failure. Late post-operative complications included three (4.5%) cases of post-operative ventral hernia and five (7.5%) cases of mesh erosion, all in patients operated using Ethibond sutures.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical success of RALSCP in POP patients at high risk for surgical failure is worse than previously reported. Advanced pre-operative anterior vaginal wall prolapse is a risk factor for surgical failure. Delayed absorbable sutures for vaginal mesh fixation seem to be safer than multifilament, permanent sutures, in terms of the risk for mesh erosion.