Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse

作者：Paek Jiheum; Lee Maria; Kim Bo Wook; Kwon Yongil^*

来源：International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, 2016, 27(4): 593-599.

DOI：10.1007/s00192-015-2869-4

• Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy
• Pelvic organ prolapse
• Robotic

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).
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.
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.
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.

• 出版日期2016-4