Background: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition, affecting about 50% of women with children. The aim of our study was to evaluate results and complication rates in a consecutive series of female patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterosacropexy (RALHSP). Materials and Methods: We performed a medical record review of female patients with uterine prolapse who had consecutively undergone RALHSP from February 2010 to 2013 at our department. Results: Fifteen patients were included in the analysis. All patients had uterine prolapse stage ≥II and urodynamic stress urinary incontinence. The mean age was 58.26 years. According to the Clavien-Dindo system, 4 out of 15 patients (26.6%) had grade 1 early complications and 1 patient had a grade 2 complication. At a median follow-up of 36 months, there was a significant prolapse relapse rate of 20% (3/15). Conclusion: In our hands RALHSP is easy to perform, with satisfying mid-term outcomes and a low complication rate.

Keywords:
Pelvic organ prolapse, Robotic surgery, Urogynecology, Hysterosacropexy, Complications
1.
Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, et al: True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med 1999;44:679-684.
2.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL: Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:501-506.
3.
Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Zucchi A, et al: Urgency, detrusor overactivity and posterior vault prolapse in women who underwent pelvic organ prolapse repair. Urol Int 2013;90:168-173.
4.
Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L: Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:108-115.
5.
Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al: Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:805-823.
6.
Moreno Sierra J, Ortiz Oshiro E, Fernandez Pérez C, et al: Long-term outcomes after robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse. Urol Int 2011;86:414-418.
7.
Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M: Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol 2005;48:642-649.
8.
Gutman R, Maher C: Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:1803-1813.
9.
Schäfer W, Abrams P, Liao L, Mattiasson A, Pesce F, Spangberg A, Sterling AM, Zinner NR, van Kerrebroeck P; International Continence Society: Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 2002;21:261-274.
10.
Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, et al: Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:1245.
11.
Dripps RD, Lamont A, Eckenhoff JE: The role of anesthesia in surgical mortality. JAMA 1961;178:261-266.
12.
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al: The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:10-17.
13.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
14.
Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein AJ (eds): Incontinence: 4th International Consultation on Incontinence Paris July 5-8, 2008, ed 4. London, Health Publication Ltd, 2009.
15.
Diwan A, Rardin CR, Kohli N: Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2004;15:286-292.
16.
Petros PEP: The Female Pelvic Floor, ed 3. Berlin, Springer, 2010.
17.
Petros P: Influence of hysterectomy on pelvic-floor dysfunction. Lancet 2000;356:1275.
18.
Masters WH, Johnson VE: Human Sexual Response. Toronto, Bantam Books, 1966.
19.
Barranger E, Fritel X, Pigne A: Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: long-term follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:1245-1250.
20.
Lewis CM, Culligan P: Sacrohysteropexy followed by successful pregnancy and eventual reoperation for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:957-959.
21.
Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Zucchi A, Bini V, Mearini L, Porena M: Five-year outcome of uterus sparing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a single-center experience. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22:287-292.
22.
Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR: Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG 2010;117:62-68.
23.
Daneshgari F, Kefer JC, Moore C, Kaouk J: Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int 2007;100:875-879.
24.
Vitobello D, Siesto G, Bulletti C: Robotic sacral hysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Med Robot 2012;8:114-117.
25.
Ingber MS, Colton MD, Zimmerman GE: Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) hysteropexy. Updates Surg 2012;64:53-57.
26.
Behnia-Willison F, Garg A, Keirse MJ: A laparoendoscopic single-site surgery approach to mesh sacrohysteropexy. Case Rep Med 2013;2013:641675.
27.
Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP: A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG 2004;111:50-56.
© 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel
2015
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.