Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.

MedStar author(s):

Antosh, Danielle D

Citation: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 18(3):158-61, 2012 May-Jun.PMID: 22543767Institution: MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Obstetrics and Gynecology/Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive SurgeryForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Comparative Study | Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Gynecologic Surgical Procedures | *Laparoscopy | *Outcome Assessment (Health Care) | *Pelvic Organ Prolapse/su [Surgery] | *Robotics | Blood Loss, Surgical | Female | Humans | Length of Stay | Middle Aged | Postoperative Complications | Retrospective Studies | Time FactorsYear: 2012 ISSN:

2151-8378

Name of journal: Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgeryAbstract: CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy had similar operative times, short-term anatomic cure rates, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay.METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a convenience sample was performed comparing patients who underwent robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy during a 4-year period. Operative time, blood loss, perioperative complications, and objective cure of prolapse at 3 months were compared.OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare operative times and short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.RESULTS: Robotic procedures in 65 women and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy procedures in 23 women were performed. Median preoperative prolapse was stage 3 for both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the median operative time between the robotic and laparoscopic groups, although this did not include robot setup time and did include concurrent procedures that differed significantly between groups (334 vs 325 minutes, P = 0.30). Estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group (50 vs 100 mL, P = 0.003). Median hospital stay was 1 day in both groups (P = 0.23). There were no differences in overall objective cure rates between robotic and laparoscopic groups at 3 months of follow-up (87.1% vs 91.3%, P = 0.72). Perioperative complications, including visceral injury and mesh erosion, did not differ significantly between these groups.All authors: Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, Gutman RE, McDonald MA, Park AJ, Shveiky D, Sokol AIFiscal year: FY2012Digital Object Identifier:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824b218d

Date added to catalog: 2013-09-17

Holdings ( 1 )
Title notes ( 5 )

Holdings
Item type	Current library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Journal Article	MedStar Authors Catalog	Article	22543767	Available		22543767

CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy had similar operative times, short-term anatomic cure rates, perioperative complications, and length of hospital stay.

METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a convenience sample was performed comparing patients who underwent robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy during a 4-year period. Operative time, blood loss, perioperative complications, and objective cure of prolapse at 3 months were compared.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare operative times and short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.

RESULTS: Robotic procedures in 65 women and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy procedures in 23 women were performed. Median preoperative prolapse was stage 3 for both groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the median operative time between the robotic and laparoscopic groups, although this did not include robot setup time and did include concurrent procedures that differed significantly between groups (334 vs 325 minutes, P = 0.30). Estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group (50 vs 100 mL, P = 0.003). Median hospital stay was 1 day in both groups (P = 0.23). There were no differences in overall objective cure rates between robotic and laparoscopic groups at 3 months of follow-up (87.1% vs 91.3%, P = 0.72). Perioperative complications, including visceral injury and mesh erosion, did not differ significantly between these groups.

English