Cargando…
Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review
The use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in the field of gynaecology, including pelvic floor surgery. To assess the benefits of RAS, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. The Cochrane Library...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4854942/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27226787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0930-z |
_version_ | 1782430278236504064 |
---|---|
author | Callewaert, Geertje Bosteels, Jan Housmans, Susanne Verguts, Jasper Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben Van der Aa, Frank De Ridder, Dirk Vergote, Ignace Deprest, Jan |
author_facet | Callewaert, Geertje Bosteels, Jan Housmans, Susanne Verguts, Jasper Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben Van der Aa, Frank De Ridder, Dirk Vergote, Ignace Deprest, Jan |
author_sort | Callewaert, Geertje |
collection | PubMed |
description | The use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in the field of gynaecology, including pelvic floor surgery. To assess the benefits of RAS, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. The Cochrane Library (1970–January 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), and EMBASE (1974 to January 2015) were searched, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We identified two randomized trials (n = 78) comparing laparoscopic with robotic sacrocolpopexy. The Paraiso 2011 study showed that laparoscopic was faster than robotic sacrocolpopexy (199 ± 46 vs. 265 ± 50 min; p < .001), yet in the ACCESS trial, no difference was present (225 ± 62.3 vs. 246.5 ± 51.3 min; p = .110). Costs for using the robot were significantly higher in both studies, however, in the ACCESS trial, only when purchase and maintenance of the robot was included (LSC US$11,573 ± 3191 vs. RASC US$19,616 ± 3135; p < .001). In the Paraiso study, RASC was more expensive even without considering those costs (LSC US$ 14,342 ± 2941 vs. RASC 16,278 ± 3326; p = 0.008). Pain was reportedly higher after RASC, although at different time points after the operation. There were no differences in anatomical outcomes, pelvic floor function, and quality of life. The experience with RASC was tenfold lower than that with LSC in both studies. The heterogeneity between the two studies precluded a meta-analysis. Based on small randomized studies, with surgeons less experienced in RAS than in laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery significantly increases the cost of a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. RASC would be more sustainable if its costs would be lower. Though RASC may have other benefits, such as reduction of the learning curve and increased ergonomics or dexterity, these remain to be demonstrated. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10397-016-0930-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4854942 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48549422016-05-23 Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review Callewaert, Geertje Bosteels, Jan Housmans, Susanne Verguts, Jasper Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben Van der Aa, Frank De Ridder, Dirk Vergote, Ignace Deprest, Jan Gynecol Surg Review Article The use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in the field of gynaecology, including pelvic floor surgery. To assess the benefits of RAS, we conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. The Cochrane Library (1970–January 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), and EMBASE (1974 to January 2015) were searched, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We identified two randomized trials (n = 78) comparing laparoscopic with robotic sacrocolpopexy. The Paraiso 2011 study showed that laparoscopic was faster than robotic sacrocolpopexy (199 ± 46 vs. 265 ± 50 min; p < .001), yet in the ACCESS trial, no difference was present (225 ± 62.3 vs. 246.5 ± 51.3 min; p = .110). Costs for using the robot were significantly higher in both studies, however, in the ACCESS trial, only when purchase and maintenance of the robot was included (LSC US$11,573 ± 3191 vs. RASC US$19,616 ± 3135; p < .001). In the Paraiso study, RASC was more expensive even without considering those costs (LSC US$ 14,342 ± 2941 vs. RASC 16,278 ± 3326; p = 0.008). Pain was reportedly higher after RASC, although at different time points after the operation. There were no differences in anatomical outcomes, pelvic floor function, and quality of life. The experience with RASC was tenfold lower than that with LSC in both studies. The heterogeneity between the two studies precluded a meta-analysis. Based on small randomized studies, with surgeons less experienced in RAS than in laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery significantly increases the cost of a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. RASC would be more sustainable if its costs would be lower. Though RASC may have other benefits, such as reduction of the learning curve and increased ergonomics or dexterity, these remain to be demonstrated. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10397-016-0930-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016-01-26 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4854942/ /pubmed/27226787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0930-z Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Callewaert, Geertje Bosteels, Jan Housmans, Susanne Verguts, Jasper Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben Van der Aa, Frank De Ridder, Dirk Vergote, Ignace Deprest, Jan Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review |
title | Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review |
title_full | Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review |
title_short | Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review |
title_sort | laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4854942/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27226787 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-016-0930-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT callewaertgeertje laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview AT bosteelsjan laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview AT housmanssusanne laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview AT vergutsjasper laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview AT vancleynenbreugelben laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview AT vanderaafrank laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview AT deridderdirk laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview AT vergoteignace laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview AT deprestjan laparoscopicversusroboticassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapseasystematicreview |