Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse. Issue 4 (April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Paek, Jiheum; Lee, Maria; Kim, Bo; Kwon, Yongil
• Is Part Of: International urogynecology journal. Volume 27:Issue 4(2016)
• Page Start: 593
• Page End: 599
• Publication Date: 2016-04
• Subjects: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy -- Pelvic organ prolapse -- Robotic; Urogynecology -- Periodicals; Generative organs, Female -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.60082
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2869-4
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0937-3462

Abstract

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.