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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Callewaert, Geertje, Bosteels, Jan, Housmans, Susanne, Verguts, Jasper, Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben, Van der Aa, Frank, De Ridder, Dirk, Vergote, Ignace, Deprest, Jan
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