Cargando…

Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is greatly affecting the quality of life (QOL) of women. There are some surgical techniques for POP repair, for example, transvaginal mesh surgery (TVM), laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC). In the United States and Europ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kusuda, Mayuko, Kagami, Keiko, Takahashi, Ikumi, Nozaki, Takahiro, Sakamoto, Ikuko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9275127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35820857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01702-z
_version_ 1784745427150569472
author Kusuda, Mayuko
Kagami, Keiko
Takahashi, Ikumi
Nozaki, Takahiro
Sakamoto, Ikuko
author_facet Kusuda, Mayuko
Kagami, Keiko
Takahashi, Ikumi
Nozaki, Takahiro
Sakamoto, Ikuko
author_sort Kusuda, Mayuko
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is greatly affecting the quality of life (QOL) of women. There are some surgical techniques for POP repair, for example, transvaginal mesh surgery (TVM), laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC). In the United States and Europe, the number of TVM has rapidly decreased since 2011 due to complications and safety concerns and has shifted to LSC/RSC. In Japan, RSC has increased after the insurance coverage of RSC in 2020. Therefore, we compared the surgical outcomes of TVM and RSC in POP surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively collected POP surgery underwent TVM or RSC at our hospital and compared the operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and preoperative and postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) of two groups. Preoperative and postoperative SUI were classified into 3 groups: “improved preoperative SUI”, “persistent preoperative SUI” and “de novo SUI”, which occurred for the first time in patients with no preoperative SUI, and compared incidence rate. The Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the two groups, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From August 2011 to July 2021, 76 POP surgery was performed and they were classified into two groups: TVM group (n = 39) and RSC group (n = 37). There was no difference in patient age and BMI between the TVM and RSC groups. The median of operative time was 78.0 vs. 111.0 min (p = 0.06), blood loss was 20.0 ml vs. 5.0 ml (p < 0.05), and postoperative hospital stay was 4.0 days vs. 3.0 days (p < 0.05), with less blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay in the RSC group. There was no difference in postoperative complications between the TVM and RSC groups (17.9% vs. 16.2%, p = 1.00). De novo SUI was 25.6% vs. 5.4% (p < 0.05) in the TVM and RSC groups, of which 23.1% vs. 5.4% (p < 0.05) occurred within 3 months of surgery. CONCLUSION: RSC is more beneficial and less invasive for patients with pelvic organ prolapse than TVM. In addition, de novo SUI as postoperative complication of RSC was lower than of TVM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9275127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92751272022-07-13 Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse Kusuda, Mayuko Kagami, Keiko Takahashi, Ikumi Nozaki, Takahiro Sakamoto, Ikuko BMC Surg Research BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is greatly affecting the quality of life (QOL) of women. There are some surgical techniques for POP repair, for example, transvaginal mesh surgery (TVM), laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC). In the United States and Europe, the number of TVM has rapidly decreased since 2011 due to complications and safety concerns and has shifted to LSC/RSC. In Japan, RSC has increased after the insurance coverage of RSC in 2020. Therefore, we compared the surgical outcomes of TVM and RSC in POP surgery. METHODS: We retrospectively collected POP surgery underwent TVM or RSC at our hospital and compared the operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and preoperative and postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) of two groups. Preoperative and postoperative SUI were classified into 3 groups: “improved preoperative SUI”, “persistent preoperative SUI” and “de novo SUI”, which occurred for the first time in patients with no preoperative SUI, and compared incidence rate. The Mann–Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the two groups, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: From August 2011 to July 2021, 76 POP surgery was performed and they were classified into two groups: TVM group (n = 39) and RSC group (n = 37). There was no difference in patient age and BMI between the TVM and RSC groups. The median of operative time was 78.0 vs. 111.0 min (p = 0.06), blood loss was 20.0 ml vs. 5.0 ml (p < 0.05), and postoperative hospital stay was 4.0 days vs. 3.0 days (p < 0.05), with less blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stay in the RSC group. There was no difference in postoperative complications between the TVM and RSC groups (17.9% vs. 16.2%, p = 1.00). De novo SUI was 25.6% vs. 5.4% (p < 0.05) in the TVM and RSC groups, of which 23.1% vs. 5.4% (p < 0.05) occurred within 3 months of surgery. CONCLUSION: RSC is more beneficial and less invasive for patients with pelvic organ prolapse than TVM. In addition, de novo SUI as postoperative complication of RSC was lower than of TVM. BioMed Central 2022-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9275127/ /pubmed/35820857 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01702-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Kusuda, Mayuko
Kagami, Keiko
Takahashi, Ikumi
Nozaki, Takahiro
Sakamoto, Ikuko
Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
title Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
title_full Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
title_fullStr Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
title_short Comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
title_sort comparison of transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9275127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35820857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01702-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kusudamayuko comparisonoftransvaginalmeshsurgeryandrobotassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapse
AT kagamikeiko comparisonoftransvaginalmeshsurgeryandrobotassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapse
AT takahashiikumi comparisonoftransvaginalmeshsurgeryandrobotassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapse
AT nozakitakahiro comparisonoftransvaginalmeshsurgeryandrobotassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapse
AT sakamotoikuko comparisonoftransvaginalmeshsurgeryandrobotassistedsacrocolpopexyforpelvicorganprolapse