Back to Search Start Over

Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors :
De Gouveia De Sa M
Claydon LS
Whitlow B
Dolcet Artahona MA
Source :
International urogynecology journal [Int Urogynecol J] 2016 Mar; Vol. 27 (3), pp. 355-66. Date of Electronic Publication: 2015 Aug 07.
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

Introduction and Hypothesis: Pelvic organ prolapse shows an increasing prevalence (3-50 %). The gold standard treatment for apical prolapse is sacrocolpopexy, which can be performed via minimal access (conventional laparoscopy or robotic surgery) or open sacrocolpopexy. The objective is to appraise the effectiveness and safety of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic sacropexy in the treatment of apical prolapse.<br />Methods: Keywords were searched in: CINAHL, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane MDSG Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Trials Registry Platform search portal, LILACS, and Google Scholar. A hand-search was also performed from IUJ and JMIG. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials evaluating all women who underwent robotic sacropexy (RSC) or laparoscopic sacropexy (LSC) were included. A data extraction tool was used for data collection. RSC was compared with LSC. Narrative analysis and meta-analysis (RevMan) were conducted where appropriate.<br />Results: Nine papers compared RSC with LSC, involving 1,157 subjects. No significant difference was found between approaches for anatomical outcomes, mortality, hospital stay (MD: -0.72/95 % CI 1.72, 0.28], pā€‰=ā€‰0.16), and postoperative quality of life. However, robotic sacropexy had more postoperative pain and longer operating times, although fewer overall complications when performed concomitantly with hysterectomy (OR 0.35; 95 % CI 0.19-0.64).<br />Conclusions: Robotic sacropexy was related to more postoperative pain and longer operating times. However, no significant differences were found regarding anatomical outcomes, mortality, hospital stay or postoperative quality of life. Cautious interpretation of results is advised because of the risk of bias caused by the inclusion of non-randomised studies. More research comparing RSC with LSC is mandatory, particularly draw conclusions regarding estimated blood loss and complication rate.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1433-3023
Volume :
27
Issue :
3
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
International urogynecology journal
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
26249235
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2763-0