Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy safe and effective in women over 65 years of age?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy in elderly patients with symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse and to compare the outcomes of open abdominal and robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy in geriatric patients.

Methods

Elderly patients (≥65 years of age) who underwent open abdominal or robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy for treatment of symptomatic grade 3 and 4 apical pelvic organ prolapse between November 2015 and May 2019 were evaluated retrospectively. The success rates of the procedures, the surgical outcomes, and the perioperative adverse events of both groups were compared. Perioperative adverse events were categorized according to the Clavien–Dindo classification.

Results

Forty-four patients underwent open abdominal sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy and 30 patients underwent robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy. The mean age in the open abdominal sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy group was 68.4 ± 3.4 years and in the robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy group it was 69.7 ± 4.1 years. The success rates in the open abdominal sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy and robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy groups were 59% and 57% at median follow-up time of 28 months and 24 months respectively. Although the mean dosage of the analgesic (10.1 mg/24 h) and the mean length of hospital stay (2.1 days) were significantly lower and shorter for the robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy group, the mean duration of operation was considerably longer (141.2 min). The rate of grade 2 or higher complications for open abdominal sacrocolpopexy was 16% (7 out of 44) and for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy it was 17% (5 out of 30).

Conclusions

Anatomical outcomes and adverse events are similar in elderly patients undergoing open sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy and robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology and American Urogynecologic Society. Pelvic organ prolapse: ACOG practice bulletin, number 214. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):126–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hong CX, Halani PK, Gutkind N, Harvie HS, Arya LA, Andy UU. Perioperative adverse events in women over age 65 undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(7):1463–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sung VW, Weitzen S, Sokol ER, Rardin CR, Myers DL. Effect of patient age on increasing morbidity and mortality following urogynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1411–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z, Blaganje M, Havir M, Havelkova L, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay management for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;244(8):60–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(10):CD012376.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(5):252–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Callewaert G, Bosteels J, Housmans S, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:115–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Turner LC, Kantartzis K, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP. The effect of age on complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1251–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Daabiss M. American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification. Indian J Anaesth. 2011;55(2):111–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Alas AN, Anger JT. Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(5):33–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. St Louis S, Salamon C. Robotic sacrocolpopexy. A review. Minerva Ginecol. 2015;67(3):273–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee JR, Lee PB, Do SH, et al. The effect of gynaecological laparoscopic surgery on cerebral oxygenation. J Int Med Res. 2006;34(5):531–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Guo W, Ding J, Jin X, Li G. Effect of cerebral oxygen saturation on postoperative nausea and vomiting in female laparoscopic surgery patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(41):e8275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schramm P, Treiber AH, Berres M, et al. Time course of cerebrovascular autoregulation during extreme Trendelenburg position for robotic-assisted prostatic surgery. Anaesthesia. 2014;69(1):58–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Özgün A, Sargın A, Karaman S, Günüşen İ, Alper I, Aşkar FZ. The relationship between the Trendelenburg position and cerebral hypoxia inpatients who have undergone robot-assisted hysterectomy and prostatectomy. Turk J Med Sci. 2017;47(6):1797–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krlin RM, Soules KA, Winters JC. Surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse in elderly patients. Curr Opin Urol. 2016;26(2):193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Danforth TL, Aron M, Ginsberg DA. Robotic sacrocolpopexy. Indian J Urol. 2014;30(3):318–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hsiao KC, Latchamsetty K, Govier FE, Kozlowski P, Kobashi KC. Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. J Endourol. 2007;21(8):926–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Khan A, Alperin M, Wu N, et al. Comparative outcomes of open versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy among Medicare beneficiaries. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1883–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol. 2012;187(2):638–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):377–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196(1):159–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):303–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;132(3):284–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1752–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Robinson BL, Parnell BA, Sandbulte JT, Geller EJ, Connolly A, Matthews CA. Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):230–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Deniz Hizay for his contribution to the statistical evaluation.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Adem Sanci

    Present address: Urology Department, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Adnan Saygun Caddesi, Altindag, 06480, Ankara, Turkey

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, Ankara University Faculty of Medicine, Adnan Saygun Caddesi, Altindag, 06480, Ankara, Turkey

    Mehmet Ilker Gokce, Evren Süer & Omer Gülpinar

  2. Urology Department, Cubuk Halil Sivgin State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

    Cagri Akpinar

Authors
  1. Adem Sanci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cagri Akpinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehmet Ilker Gokce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Evren Süer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Omer Gülpinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A. Sanci: project development, data collection, manuscript writing; C. Akpinar: data collection; M.I. Gokce: data analysis; E. Süer: protocol/project development; O. Gülpınar: manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adem Sanci.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sanci, A., Akpinar, C., Gokce, M.I. et al. Is robotic-assisted sacrocolpo(hystero)pexy safe and effective in women over 65 years of age?. Int Urogynecol J 32, 2211–2217 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04677-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04677-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation