Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes between Single-Port Robotic Sacrocolpopexy and Multi-Port Approaches.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Erin Ferrigni, Sumin Oh, Kristina Butler, Jeffrey L Cornella, Aqsa Khan, Christopher E Wolter, Johnny Yi
{"title":"Comparison of Perioperative and Postoperative Outcomes between Single-Port Robotic Sacrocolpopexy and Multi-Port Approaches.","authors":"Erin Ferrigni, Sumin Oh, Kristina Butler, Jeffrey L Cornella, Aqsa Khan, Christopher E Wolter, Johnny Yi","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06204-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic (RSP) sacrocolpopexy (SCP) in comparison to the multi-port approach (RMP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study set at an academic, tertiary care center. The primary outcome was operative time (incision to closure) and the secondary outcomes included number and severity of complications. Medical charts were reviewed of patients who had undergone a robotic SCP between March 2018 and December 2024. Differences were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests, Fisher's exact tests, and multivariable regression models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and eighty-one eligible cases were included. Among them, 109 patients underwent RMP, and 72 patients underwent the RSP approach. For operative time, RSP SCP was statistically significantly shorter than RMP SCP by 40 min (216 versus 176 min, p < .001). The hospital length of stay was shorter for the RSP group (11.0 versus 17.0 h, p < .001), while EBL showed no difference between groups (p = 0.18). No conversion to laparoscopy or laparotomy was found in both groups. Number and severity of adverse events assessed by Clavien-Dindo classification were similar and overall complication rates and complications requiring surgical correction under anesthesia did not show a difference (Clavien-Dindo Grade III, RMP 11.0% vs RSP 5.6%, p = 0.58). Median follow-up was 15.2 weeks postoperatively, and there were no significant differences in reoperation within 30 days, mesh erosion, prolapse recurrence and subsequent reoperations due to the recurrence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Single-port robotic sacrocolpopexy is a safe and feasible minimally invasive technique to address apical pelvic floor prolapse.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06204-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: To evaluate the feasibility and perioperative outcomes of single-port robotic (RSP) sacrocolpopexy (SCP) in comparison to the multi-port approach (RMP).

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study set at an academic, tertiary care center. The primary outcome was operative time (incision to closure) and the secondary outcomes included number and severity of complications. Medical charts were reviewed of patients who had undergone a robotic SCP between March 2018 and December 2024. Differences were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests, Fisher's exact tests, and multivariable regression models.

Results: One hundred and eighty-one eligible cases were included. Among them, 109 patients underwent RMP, and 72 patients underwent the RSP approach. For operative time, RSP SCP was statistically significantly shorter than RMP SCP by 40 min (216 versus 176 min, p < .001). The hospital length of stay was shorter for the RSP group (11.0 versus 17.0 h, p < .001), while EBL showed no difference between groups (p = 0.18). No conversion to laparoscopy or laparotomy was found in both groups. Number and severity of adverse events assessed by Clavien-Dindo classification were similar and overall complication rates and complications requiring surgical correction under anesthesia did not show a difference (Clavien-Dindo Grade III, RMP 11.0% vs RSP 5.6%, p = 0.58). Median follow-up was 15.2 weeks postoperatively, and there were no significant differences in reoperation within 30 days, mesh erosion, prolapse recurrence and subsequent reoperations due to the recurrence.

Conclusions: Single-port robotic sacrocolpopexy is a safe and feasible minimally invasive technique to address apical pelvic floor prolapse.

单孔机器人骶髋固定术与多孔机器人骶髋固定术围术期及术后疗效比较。
前言和假设:比较单孔机器人骶colpopexy (RSP)与多孔机器人骶colpopexy (RMP)的可行性和围手术期疗效。方法:这是一项在学术三级保健中心进行的回顾性队列研究。主要结果是手术时间(切口至闭合),次要结果包括并发症的数量和严重程度。研究人员回顾了2018年3月至2024年12月期间接受机器人SCP手术的患者的医疗图表。采用Mann-Whitney U检验、Fisher精确检验和多变量回归模型对差异进行检验。结果:纳入181例符合条件的病例。其中,RMP入路109例,RSP入路72例。在手术时间方面,RSP SCP比RMP SCP缩短40分钟(216分钟比176分钟),差异有统计学意义。结论:单孔机器人骶colpop固定术是一种安全可行的治疗盆底根尖脱垂的微创技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信