Experience of reconstructive plastic robot-assisted surgery in patients with isthmocele after cesarean section

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: According to several Russian researchers, the number of cesarean deliveries in different regions of Russia varies from 15.2% to 42%. The incidence of complications — inconsistency of the uterine scar (isthmocele) after surgery is 10%–15%.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the efficiency and safety of robot-assisted surgery in the correction of isthmoceles after cesarean section in patients of reproductive age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved seven patients aged 27–34 years with signs of isthmoceles after urgent or elective cesarean section 12 months to 6 years prior to hospitalization. A comprehensive dynamic examination (echography, magnetic resonance imaging, and office hysteroscopy), surgical treatment with the da Vinci Si robotic complex, and outpatient monitoring in the early and long-term period (1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months) were performed.

RESULTS: The patients were satisfied with the results of surgical treatment during outpatient monitoring due to the improved quality of life resulting from the reduction of pathological symptoms. The control echography (1, 6, and 12 months later) showed normal myometrial thickness (9–11 mm) and adequate blood flow in the metroplasty area in all patients. The “niche” was not visualized during office hysteroscopy 6-months after the metroplasty. Three patients became pregnant 16–20 months after the reconstructive uteroplasty and ended with a timely operative delivery. Two patients were followed up for their pregnancies at 12 and 29 weeks of gestation, while two women continued taking oral contraceptives and planned their next pregnancy at least a year later.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of the da Vinci Si robotic system for surgical correction of isthmoceles provides volumetric three-dimensional visualization of anatomical structures, reduces the duration of surgery and intraoperative blood loss, minimizes the number of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and contributes to accelerated postoperative rehabilitation of patients.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Dmitrii V. Bryunin

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: bryun777@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5969-4217

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

Russian Federation, Moscow

Nana S. Mikhaelyan

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: nana1991@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5880-1861

post-graduate student

Russian Federation, Moscow

Alla A. Bakhvalova

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: allbak0202@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3966-3296

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Moscow

Irina D. Khokhlova

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: irhohlova5@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8547-6750

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), assistant professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Tea A. Dzhibladze

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: djiba@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1540-5628

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

Russian Federation, Moscow

Irina V. Gadaeva

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: irina090765@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0144-4984

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), assistant professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Yurii V. Chushkov

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: obstetrics-gynecology@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8125-1829

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), assistant professor

Russian Federation, Moscow

Evgeniya A. Svidinskaya

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: svidinskaya@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2368-1932

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), assistant lecturer

Russian Federation, Moscow

Ailar Asambaeva

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: dr.ailar7@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5399-7586

post-graduate student

Russian Federation, Moscow

Anatolii I. Ishchenko

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University)

Email: 7205502@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3338-1113

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor, Head of the Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Filippov EF, Pirozhnik EG, Melkoniants TG, et al. Experience of transvaginal extraperitoneal approach in surgical treatment of uterine scar leak after caesarian section. Kubanskij nauchnyj medicinskij vestnik. 2018;25(1):40–45. (In Russ). doi: 10.25207/1608-6228-2018-25-1-40-45
  2. Davydov AI, Tairova MB, Shakhlamova MN. Surgical correction (metroplasty) of the complete failure of the uterine scar after cesarean section in a distant period. Vopr ginekol akus perinatol. (Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology). 2020;19(3):107–109. (In Russ). doi: 10.20953/1726-1678-2020-3-107-109
  3. Ishchenko AI, Davydov AI, Aleksandrov LS, et al. Uterine scar incompetency after the cesarean section. Choice of surgical intervention method. Vopr ginekol akus perinatol. (Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology). 2018;17(4):51–59. (In Russ). doi: 10.20953/1726-1678-2018-4-51-59
  4. Marino MV, Shabat G, Gulotta G, Komorowski AL. From Illusion to Reality: A Brief History of Robotic Surgery. Surg Innov. 2018;25(3):291–296. doi: 10.1177/1553350618771417
  5. Morelli L, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, et al. Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(1). doi: 10.1002/rcs.1728
  6. Popov AA, Atroshenko KV, Slobodyanuyk BA, Ashurova GZ, Zingan SI. Robotic Surgery in Gynecology. Kubanskij nauchnyj medicinskij vestnik. 2016;(1):116–120. (In Russ).
  7. Khatkov IE, Ponomareva YuN, Loginova EA. Robot-assisted laparoscopy in the treatment of gynecological oncological diseases. Endoscopic Surgery. 2020;26(2):5057. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/endoskop20202602150
  8. Krasnopol’skiĭ VI, Buianova SN, Shchukina NA, Logutova LS. Uterine suture (scar) incompetence after cesarean section: Problems and solutions (an editorial). Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2015;15(3):48. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/rosakush20151534-8
  9. Bryunin DV, Mikhayelyan NS, Khokhlova Irina D, et al. Experience of laparoscopic correction of failure of the uterine scar after the cesarean operation. V.F. Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;5(3):148–153. (In Russ). doi: 10.18821/2313-8726-2018-5-3-148-153
  10. Aimi G, Buggio L, Berlanda N, Vercellini P. Laparoscopic repair of a symptomatic post-cesarean section isthmocele: a video case report. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(6):e17–e18. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.04.004
  11. Vitale SG, Ludwin A, Vilos GA, et al. From hysteroscopy to laparoendoscopic surgery: what is the best surgical approach for symptomatic isthmocele? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;301(1):33–52. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05438-0
  12. Nozhnitseva ON, Semenov IA, Bezhenar VF. The scar on the uterus after cesarean section and the optimal algorithm for diagnostics. Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2019;(2):85–90. (In Russ). doi: 10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-2-85-90
  13. Antila-Långsjö R, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala H, Tomás E, Staff S. Comparison of transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(9):1130–1136. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13367
  14. Giral E, Capmas P, Levaillant JM, Berman A, Fernandez H. Interest of saline contrast sonohysterography for the diagnosis of cesarean scar defects. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015;43(11):693–698. (In French). doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2015.09.015
  15. Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM. Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(1):289–296.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033
  16. Fedorov AV, Kriger AG, Berelavichus SV, Efanov MG, Gorin DS. Robotic-assisted abdominal surgery. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2010;(1):1621. (In Russ).
  17. Vasil’ev AO, Govorov AV, Kolontarev KB, et al. Sovremennye roboticheskie tekhnologii v lechenii urologicheskikh zabolevanii. Medical alphabet. 2017;3(33):25–28. (In Russ).
  18. Levinson KL, Auer M, Escobar PF. Evolving technologies in robotic surgery for minimally invasive treatment of gynecologic cancers. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10(5):603–610. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2013.827509

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2022 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