V.F.Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and GynecologyV.F.Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and GynecologyАрхив акушерства и гинекологии им. В.Ф. Снегирева2313-87262687-1386Eco-Vector56860010.17816/2313-8726-2023-10-4-253-259ReviewsНаучные обзорыReview ArticleComparison of the use of different accesses for sacrocolpopexy in women with apical prolapse: A literature reviewСравнение использования различных доступов при проведении сакрокольпопексии у женщин с апикальным пролапсом (обзор литературы)https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3176-5589BakhtiyarovKamil’ R.БахтияровКамиль Рафаэльевич
Russian Federation

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

д-р мед. наук, профессор

doctorbah@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7658-8769EvstratovaKristina D.ЕвстратоваКристина Дмитриевна
Russian Federation

Student

студентка

2901121@mail.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6433-2483VirivskayaElena V.ВиривскаяЕлена Владимировна
Russian Federation

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

канд. мед. наук

elenglikman@yandex.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3964-1609ZvyagintsevaMargarita R.ЗвягинцеваМаргарита Руслановна
Russian Federation

Student

студентка

zv.margarita16@gmail.comI.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical UniversityПервый Московский государственный медицинский университет им. И.М. Сеченова (Сеченовский Университет)N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical UniversityРоссийский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И. ПироговаOrel State University named after I.S. TurgenevОрловский государственный университет им. И.С. Тургенева1912202310425325918082023Copyright ©; 2023, Eco-VectorCopyright ©; 2023, Эко-Вектор2023Eco-VectorЭко-Векторhttps://archivog.com/2313-8726/article/view/568600

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.

Интерес к проблеме пролапса гениталий неуклонно растёт во всем мире. Актуальность данной проблемы различна в разных странах и изначально выше в странах с ограниченными ресурсами. В тех регионах, где подводится систематическая статистика, распространённость пролапса органов малого таза варьирует в различных исследованиях и составляет от 3 до 50%. В отечественной и зарубежной литературе широко освещены консервативные и хирургические методы его коррекции. Один из них ― сакрокольпопексия, чаще всего используемая для коррекции апикального пролапса. Цель данного обзора ― сравнить и оценить результаты применения абдоминального, роботизированного и лапароскопического доступов при выполнении данной операции, а также определить преимущества и недостатки каждого из них. Каждый вид хирургического доступа авторы рассматривают с точки зрения частоты послеоперационных осложнений, продолжительности операции и общей удовлетворённости качеством жизни пациенток в послеоперационном периоде. Принимая во внимание общее увеличение продолжительности жизни и тенденцию к выявлению данного заболевания в более раннем возрасте, проблема выпадения органов малого таза становится всё более актуальной, так как согласно статистическим подсчётам, к 2050 году в мире этим заболеванием будут страдать 9,2 миллиона женщин.

apical prolapsemesh-associated complicationsrobot-assisted surgerysacrocolpopexyапикальный пролапссакрокольпопексияробот-ассистированные операцииmesh-ассоциированные осложненияKulikovskii VF, Oleinik NV. Pelvic prolapse in women. A guide for doctors. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2008. (In Russ).Куликовский В.Ф., Олейник Н.В. Тазовый пролапс у женщин. Руководство для врачей. Москва : ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2008.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.2018.0581Weintraub A.Y., Glinter H., Marcus-Braun N. Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse // Int Braz J Urol. 2020. Vol. 46, N. 1. P. 5–14. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0581Wu 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.0000000000000057Wu J.M., Vaughan C.P., Goode P.S., et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women // Obstet Gynecol. 2014. Vol. 123, N. 1. P. 41–148. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000057Russian 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).Российское общество акушеров-гинекологов, Общероссийская общественная организация «Российское общество урологов». Клинические рекомендации «Выпадение женских половых органов». Москва : Минздрав РФ, 2021. Режим доступа: kr647.pdf Дата обращения: 20.10.2023.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.2021.02.001Geoffrion R., Larouche M. Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women // J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021. Vol. 43, N. 4. P. 511–523.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.001Moore RD, Miklos JR. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Surg Technol Int. 2008;17:195–202.Moore R.D., Miklos J.R. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy // Surg Technol Int. 2008. Vol. 17. P. 195–202.Parkes IL, Shveiky D. Sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal apical prolapse: evidence-based surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):546–557.Parkes I.L., Shveiky D. Sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal apical prolapse: evidence-based surgery //J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014. Vol. 21, N. 4. P. 546–557. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.01.004Maher 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.CD012376Maher C., Feiner B., Baessler K., et al. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse // Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. Vol. 10, N. 10. P. CD012376. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376Toozs-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.xToozs-Hobson P., Boos K., Cardozo L. Management of vaginal vault prolapse //Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998. Vol. 105, N. 1. P. 13–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb09343.xManodoro S, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2011;3(3):151–158.Manodoro S., Werbrouck E., Veldman J., et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy // Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2011. Vol. 3, N. 3. P. 151–158.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).Насырова Н.И., Галлямов Э.А., Озолиня Л.А. Эндоскопические методы коррекции патологии тазового дна у женщин (сакрокольпопексия в сочетании с операцией по Burch) // Вестник РГМУ. 2014. № 4. С. 62–66.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/s00192-005-0019-0Krause H.G., Goh J.T.W., Sloane K., Higgs P., Carey M.P. Laparoscopic sacral suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse // Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006. Vol. 17, N. 4. P. 378–381. doi: 10.1007/s00192-005-0019-0Lane FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–77. doi: 10.1097/00006250-196207000-00009Lane F.E. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse // Obstet Gynecol. 1962. Vol. 20. P. 72–77. doi: 10.1097/00006250-196207000-00009Nygaard 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.0000139514.90897.07Nygaard I.E., McCreery R., Brubaker L., et al.; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review // Obstet Gynecol. 2004. Vol. 104, N. 4. P. 805–823. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07Nygaard 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.2013.4919Nygaard I., Brubaker L., Zyczynski H.M., et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse // JAMA. 2013. Vol. 309, N. 19. P. 2016–2024. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919Akyol 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.12363Akyol 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. Vol. 40, N. 5. P. 1368–1374. doi: 10.1111/jog.12363De 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-yDe Gouveia De Sa M., Claydon L.S., Whitlow B., Dolcet Artahona M.A. 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. Vol. 27, N. 1. P. 3–17. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2765-yKlauschie 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/s00192-008-0768-7Klauschie J.L., Suozzi B.A., O’Brien M.M., McBride A.W. A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences // Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009. Vol. 20, N. 3. P. 273–279. doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0768-7Van 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-yVan Oudheusden A.M.J., Eissing J., Terink I.M., et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial // Int Urogynecol J. 2023. Vol. 34, N. 1. P. 93–104. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05350-yMaher 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.pub5Maher C., Feiner B., Baessler K., Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women // Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013. N. 4. P. CD004014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5Yohannes 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-xYohannes P., Rotariu P., Pinto P., Smith A.D., Lee B.R. Comparison of robotic versus laparoscopic skills: is there a difference in the learning curve? // Urology. 2002. Vol. 60, N. 1. P. 39–45. doi: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01717-xDe Joliniere JB, Librino A, Dubuisson J-B, et al. Robotic Surgery in Gynecology. Front Surg. 2016;(3):26. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00026De Joliniere J.B., Librino A., Dubuisson J.-B., et al. Robotic Surgery in Gynecology // Front Surg. 2016. Vol. 3. P. 26. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00026Dursun F, Khavari R. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy steps: a narrative review. Gynecol Pelvic Med. 2020;3:33. doi: 10.21037/gpm-2020-pfd-05Dursun F., Khavari R. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy steps: a narrative review // Gynecol Pelvic Med. 2020. Vol. 3. P. 33. doi: 10.21037/gpm-2020-pfd-05Hudson 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.0000000000000070Hudson C.O., Northington G.M., Lyles R.H., Karp D.R. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014. Vol. 20, N. 5. P. 252–260. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000070Serati 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.2014.02.053Serati 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. Vol. 66, N. 2. P. 303–318. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.02.053Crisp 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.0000000000000730Crisp C.C., Herfel C.V., Kleeman S.D., Pauls R.N. Critical Anatomy for Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: A Long-term Follow-up Study // Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021. Vol. 27, N. 1. P. 16–17. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000730Pilka 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.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. Vol. 82, N. 4. P. 261–267.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/s00192-015-2763-0De Gouveia De Sa M., Claydon L.S., Whitlow B., Dolcet Artahona M.A. 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. Vol. 27, N. 3. P. 355–366. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2763-0Anger 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.0000000000000006Anger J.T., Mueller E.R., Tarnay C., et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial // Obstet Gynecol. 2014. Vol. 123, N. 1. P. 5–12. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006Chang 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-xChang C.L., Chen C.H., Yang S.S., Chang S.J. An updated systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for managing pelvic organ prolapse //J Robot Surg. 2022. Vol. 16, N. 5. P. 1037–1045. doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01329-xWu 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.0000000000000286Wu J.M., Matthews C.A., Conover M.M., Pate V., Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery // Obstet Gynecol. 2014. Vol. 123, N. 6. P. 1201–1206. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286