Comparison of the use of different accesses for sacrocolpopexy in women with apical prolapse: A literature review

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Interest in the issue of genital prolapse is increasing worldwide. The prevalence varies across countries and is higher in resource-limited ones. In countries where systematic statistics are available, the prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse ranges from 3 to 50%. Conservative and surgical methods for correcting this issue are extensively covered in Russian and foreign literature. Sacrocolpopexy is one of these methods, which is commonly used to correct apical prolapse. This review aimed to compare and evaluate the outcomes of abdominal, robotic, and laparoscopic accesses for performing this surgical procedure and assess the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Each surgical approach is analyzed regarding the incidence of postoperative complications, surgical duration, and satisfaction of patients with their quality of life in the postoperative period. Pelvic organ prolapse is an increasingly pressing issue, given the increase in life expectancy and its earlier detection. According to statistical projections, by 2050, 9.2 million women worldwide will have this disease.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Kamil’ R. Bakhtiyarov

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University

Email: doctorbah@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3176-5589

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Kristina D. Evstratova

N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Email: 2901121@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7658-8769

Student

Russian Federation, Moscow

Elena V. Virivskaya

Orel State University named after I.S. Turgenev

Email: elenglikman@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6433-2483

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Orel

Margarita R. Zvyagintseva

N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: zv.margarita16@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3964-1609

Student

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Kulikovskii VF, Oleinik NV. Pelvic prolapse in women. A guide for doctors. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2008. (In Russ).
  2. Weintraub AY, Glinter H, Marcus-Braun N. Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;46(1):5–14. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0581
  3. Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):41–148. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000057
  4. Russian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, All-Russian public Organization “Russian Society of Urologists”. Clinical guidelines “Female genital prolapse”. Moscow: Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation; 2021. Available from: kr647.pdf (In Russ).
  5. Geoffrion R, Larouche M. Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021;43(4):511–523.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.001
  6. Moore RD, Miklos JR. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Surg Technol Int. 2008;17:195–202.
  7. Parkes IL, Shveiky D. Sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal apical prolapse: evidence-based surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):546–557.
  8. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapsed. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(10):CD012376. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376
  9. Toozs-Hobson P, Boos K, Cardozo L. Management of vaginal vault prolapsed. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105(1):13–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09343.x
  10. Manodoro S, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2011;3(3):151–158.
  11. Nasyrova NI, Gallyamov EA, Ozolinya LA. Endoscopic Correction of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women (Sacrocolpopexy with Burch Colposuspension). Bulletin of Russian State Medical University. 2014;(4):62–66. (In Russ).
  12. Krause HG, Goh JTW, Sloane K, Higgs P, Carey MP. Laparoscopic sacral suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(4):378–381. doi: 10.1007/s00192-005-0019-0
  13. Lane FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–77. doi: 10.1097/00006250-196207000-00009
  14. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al.; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–823. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07
  15. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–2024. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919
  16. Akyol A, Akca A, Ulker V, et al. Additional surgical risk factors and patient characteristics for mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(5):1368–1374. doi: 10.1111/jog.12363
  17. De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):3–17. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2765-y
  18. Klauschie JL, Suozzi BA, O’Brien MM, McBride AW. A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(3):273–279. doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0768-7
  19. Van Oudheusden AMJ, Eissing J, Terink IM, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34(1):93–104. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05350-y
  20. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5
  21. Yohannes P, Rotariu P, Pinto P, Smith AD, Lee BR. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? Urology. 2002;60(1):39–45. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01717-x
  22. De Joliniere JB, Librino A, Dubuisson J-B, et al. Robotic Surgery in Gynecology. Front Surg. 2016;(3):26. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00026
  23. Dursun F, Khavari R. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy steps: a narrative review. Gynecol Pelvic Med. 2020;3:33. doi: 10.21037/gpm-2020-pfd-05
  24. Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(5):252–260. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000070
  25. Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):303–318. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053
  26. Crisp CC, Herfel CV, Kleeman SD, Pauls RN. Critical Anatomy for Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Long-term Follow-up Study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(1):16–17. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000730
  27. Pilka R, Gágyor D, Študentová M, Neubert D, Dzvinčuk P. Laparoscopic and robotic sacropexy: retrospective review of learning curve experiences and follow-up. Ceska Gynekol. 2017;82(4):261–267.
  28. De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(3):355–366. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2763-0
  29. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006
  30. Chang CL, Chen CH, Yang SS, Chang SJ. An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for managing pelvic organ prolapsed. J Robot Surg. 2022;16(5):1037–1045. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01329-x
  31. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–1206. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2023 Eco-Vector


СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: ПИ № ФС 77 - 86335 от 11.12.2023 г.  
СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 80633 от 15.03.2021 г.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies