Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes

Elizabeth J. Geller, Brent A. Parnell, Gena C. Dunivan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

55 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate longer-term clinical outcomes after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort assessment of women undergoing either robotic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy between March 2006 and October 2007. Pelvic floor support was measured using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination, and pelvic floor function was assessed via validated questionnaires, including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Results: The analysis included 51 subjects: 23 robotic and 28 abdominal. Mean time since surgery was 44.2 ± 6.4 months. Postoperative POP-Q improved similarly from baseline in both the robotic and abdominal groups: C (-8 vs -7), Aa (-2.5 vs -2.25), Ap (-2 vs -2) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Pelvic floor function also improved similarly in both groups: PFDI-20 (61.0 vs 54.7), PFIQ-7 (19.1 vs 15.7), with high sexual function PISQ-12 (35.1 vs 33.1) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Two mesh exposures occurred in each group for a rate of 8% and 7%, respectively. Conclusion: Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrates similar long-term outcomes compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The robotic approach offers an effective treatment alternative to abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the lasting treatment of advanced POP.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)532-536
Number of pages5
JournalUrology
Volume79
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2012

Fingerprint

Pelvic Floor
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Robotics
Urinary Incontinence
Therapeutics
Equipment and Supplies
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy : 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. / Geller, Elizabeth J.; Parnell, Brent A.; Dunivan, Gena C.

In: Urology, Vol. 79, No. 3, 01.03.2012, p. 532-536.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Geller, Elizabeth J. ; Parnell, Brent A. ; Dunivan, Gena C. / Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy : 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. In: Urology. 2012 ; Vol. 79, No. 3. pp. 532-536.
@article{0352d2e98e034e7983ce387d99d7570c,
title = "Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes",
abstract = "Objective: To evaluate longer-term clinical outcomes after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort assessment of women undergoing either robotic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy between March 2006 and October 2007. Pelvic floor support was measured using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination, and pelvic floor function was assessed via validated questionnaires, including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Results: The analysis included 51 subjects: 23 robotic and 28 abdominal. Mean time since surgery was 44.2 ± 6.4 months. Postoperative POP-Q improved similarly from baseline in both the robotic and abdominal groups: C (-8 vs -7), Aa (-2.5 vs -2.25), Ap (-2 vs -2) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Pelvic floor function also improved similarly in both groups: PFDI-20 (61.0 vs 54.7), PFIQ-7 (19.1 vs 15.7), with high sexual function PISQ-12 (35.1 vs 33.1) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Two mesh exposures occurred in each group for a rate of 8{\%} and 7{\%}, respectively. Conclusion: Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrates similar long-term outcomes compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The robotic approach offers an effective treatment alternative to abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the lasting treatment of advanced POP.",
author = "Geller, {Elizabeth J.} and Parnell, {Brent A.} and Dunivan, {Gena C.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.025",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "79",
pages = "532--536",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy

T2 - 44-month pelvic floor outcomes

AU - Geller, Elizabeth J.

AU - Parnell, Brent A.

AU - Dunivan, Gena C.

PY - 2012/3/1

Y1 - 2012/3/1

N2 - Objective: To evaluate longer-term clinical outcomes after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort assessment of women undergoing either robotic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy between March 2006 and October 2007. Pelvic floor support was measured using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination, and pelvic floor function was assessed via validated questionnaires, including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Results: The analysis included 51 subjects: 23 robotic and 28 abdominal. Mean time since surgery was 44.2 ± 6.4 months. Postoperative POP-Q improved similarly from baseline in both the robotic and abdominal groups: C (-8 vs -7), Aa (-2.5 vs -2.25), Ap (-2 vs -2) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Pelvic floor function also improved similarly in both groups: PFDI-20 (61.0 vs 54.7), PFIQ-7 (19.1 vs 15.7), with high sexual function PISQ-12 (35.1 vs 33.1) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Two mesh exposures occurred in each group for a rate of 8% and 7%, respectively. Conclusion: Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrates similar long-term outcomes compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The robotic approach offers an effective treatment alternative to abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the lasting treatment of advanced POP.

AB - Objective: To evaluate longer-term clinical outcomes after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort assessment of women undergoing either robotic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy between March 2006 and October 2007. Pelvic floor support was measured using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) examination, and pelvic floor function was assessed via validated questionnaires, including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Results: The analysis included 51 subjects: 23 robotic and 28 abdominal. Mean time since surgery was 44.2 ± 6.4 months. Postoperative POP-Q improved similarly from baseline in both the robotic and abdominal groups: C (-8 vs -7), Aa (-2.5 vs -2.25), Ap (-2 vs -2) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Pelvic floor function also improved similarly in both groups: PFDI-20 (61.0 vs 54.7), PFIQ-7 (19.1 vs 15.7), with high sexual function PISQ-12 (35.1 vs 33.1) (all P >.05 based on route of surgery). Two mesh exposures occurred in each group for a rate of 8% and 7%, respectively. Conclusion: Robotic sacrocolpopexy demonstrates similar long-term outcomes compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. The robotic approach offers an effective treatment alternative to abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the lasting treatment of advanced POP.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84857831184&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84857831184&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.025

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.025

M3 - Article

C2 - 22386392

AN - SCOPUS:84857831184

VL - 79

SP - 532

EP - 536

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 3

ER -