Cargando…

Initial Experience with Robotic Retropubic Urethropexy Compared to Open Retropubic Urethropexy

Study Objective. To compare the clinical outcomes of robotic retropubic urethropexy versus open retropubic urethropexy. Design. Retrospective case-control study (II-2). Setting. University Hospital. Patients. All patients who underwent robotic retropubic urethropexy from 1/1/12 to 6/1/12 by a single...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Patel, Pooja R., Borahay, Mostafa A., Puentes, Audrey R., Rodriguez, Ana M., Delaisse, Jessica, Kilic, Gokhan S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782001/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24194762
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/315680
_version_ 1782285505397784576
author Patel, Pooja R.
Borahay, Mostafa A.
Puentes, Audrey R.
Rodriguez, Ana M.
Delaisse, Jessica
Kilic, Gokhan S.
author_facet Patel, Pooja R.
Borahay, Mostafa A.
Puentes, Audrey R.
Rodriguez, Ana M.
Delaisse, Jessica
Kilic, Gokhan S.
author_sort Patel, Pooja R.
collection PubMed
description Study Objective. To compare the clinical outcomes of robotic retropubic urethropexy versus open retropubic urethropexy. Design. Retrospective case-control study (II-2). Setting. University Hospital. Patients. All patients who underwent robotic retropubic urethropexy from 1/1/12 to 6/1/12 by a single gynecologic surgeon were included in the case series. The control cases consisted of the last five consecutive open retropubic urethropexies performed by the same surgeon. Main Results. A total of 10 patients (5 robotic cases and 5 open cases) were included in this study. Both groups were similar with respect to age, BMI, and obstetrical history. Mean hospital stay length and mean EBL were overall less for robotic cases than for open cases (1.2 days versus 2.6 days; 169 mL versus 300 mL). One of the 5 patients who underwent the open approach and 2 of the 5 patients who underwent the robotic approach sustained a minor intraoperative complication. All but one patient from each group experienced resolution of incontinence after the procedure. Two of the patients who underwent the open approach had postoperative complications. Conclusions. Robotic retropubic urethropexy may be a feasible alternative to open retropubic urethropexy. A larger study is necessary to support our observations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3782001
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37820012013-11-05 Initial Experience with Robotic Retropubic Urethropexy Compared to Open Retropubic Urethropexy Patel, Pooja R. Borahay, Mostafa A. Puentes, Audrey R. Rodriguez, Ana M. Delaisse, Jessica Kilic, Gokhan S. Obstet Gynecol Int Clinical Study Study Objective. To compare the clinical outcomes of robotic retropubic urethropexy versus open retropubic urethropexy. Design. Retrospective case-control study (II-2). Setting. University Hospital. Patients. All patients who underwent robotic retropubic urethropexy from 1/1/12 to 6/1/12 by a single gynecologic surgeon were included in the case series. The control cases consisted of the last five consecutive open retropubic urethropexies performed by the same surgeon. Main Results. A total of 10 patients (5 robotic cases and 5 open cases) were included in this study. Both groups were similar with respect to age, BMI, and obstetrical history. Mean hospital stay length and mean EBL were overall less for robotic cases than for open cases (1.2 days versus 2.6 days; 169 mL versus 300 mL). One of the 5 patients who underwent the open approach and 2 of the 5 patients who underwent the robotic approach sustained a minor intraoperative complication. All but one patient from each group experienced resolution of incontinence after the procedure. Two of the patients who underwent the open approach had postoperative complications. Conclusions. Robotic retropubic urethropexy may be a feasible alternative to open retropubic urethropexy. A larger study is necessary to support our observations. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013 2013-09-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3782001/ /pubmed/24194762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/315680 Text en Copyright © 2013 Pooja R. Patel et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Patel, Pooja R.
Borahay, Mostafa A.
Puentes, Audrey R.
Rodriguez, Ana M.
Delaisse, Jessica
Kilic, Gokhan S.
Initial Experience with Robotic Retropubic Urethropexy Compared to Open Retropubic Urethropexy
title Initial Experience with Robotic Retropubic Urethropexy Compared to Open Retropubic Urethropexy
title_full Initial Experience with Robotic Retropubic Urethropexy Compared to Open Retropubic Urethropexy
title_fullStr Initial Experience with Robotic Retropubic Urethropexy Compared to Open Retropubic Urethropexy
title_full_unstemmed Initial Experience with Robotic Retropubic Urethropexy Compared to Open Retropubic Urethropexy
title_short Initial Experience with Robotic Retropubic Urethropexy Compared to Open Retropubic Urethropexy
title_sort initial experience with robotic retropubic urethropexy compared to open retropubic urethropexy
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782001/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24194762
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/315680
work_keys_str_mv AT patelpoojar initialexperiencewithroboticretropubicurethropexycomparedtoopenretropubicurethropexy
AT borahaymostafaa initialexperiencewithroboticretropubicurethropexycomparedtoopenretropubicurethropexy
AT puentesaudreyr initialexperiencewithroboticretropubicurethropexycomparedtoopenretropubicurethropexy
AT rodriguezanam initialexperiencewithroboticretropubicurethropexycomparedtoopenretropubicurethropexy
AT delaissejessica initialexperiencewithroboticretropubicurethropexycomparedtoopenretropubicurethropexy
AT kilicgokhans initialexperiencewithroboticretropubicurethropexycomparedtoopenretropubicurethropexy