Current Controversies in Robotic Prolapse Repair
详细信息    查看全文
Li H, Sammon J, Roghmann F, Sood A, Ehlert M, Sun M, et al. Quoc-Dien utilization and perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapsed. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(3-4):100–6. This study compiled expansive population data and demographics for RSC in the United States.PubMed PubMedCentral
4.Barbash GI, Glied S. New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:701–4.CrossRef PubMed
5.•
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12. This is the most recent RCT in RSC vs LSC powered to compare cost.CrossRef PubMed PubMedCentral
6.••
Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gyneco. 2011;118(5):1005–13. This was the first RCT done comparing RSC to LSC.CrossRef
7.Hoyte L, Rabbanifard R, Mezzich J, Bassaly R, Downes K. Cost analysis of open versus robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(6):335–9.CrossRef PubMed
8.Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):44–9. PubMed: 22453672.CrossRef PubMed
9.Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost minimization analysis of robot-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, cost and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:44–9.CrossRef
10.DeGouveia M, Leica SC, Whitlow B, Artahona M. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2015. doi:10.​1007/​s00192-015-2763-0 .
11.Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, Uccella S, Cromi A, Ghezzi F Robotic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. European Urology March 2014 303-318
12.Unger CA, Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Ridgeway B. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:547. e1-8.CrossRef PubMed
13.Linder B, Chow G, Elliot D. Long term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Urology. 2015. doi:10.​1111/​iju.​12900 .
14.Osmundsen BC, Clark A, Goldsmith C, Adams K, Denman MA, Edwards R, et al. Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:86–8.CrossRef PubMed
15.Hudson CO, Northington GM, Lyles RH, Karp DR. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Mar. 2014;20(5):252–60.CrossRef
16.Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):43–8. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jmig.​2012.​08.​774 .CrossRef PubMed
17.Shariati A, Maceda JS, Hale DS. Da Vinci assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: surgical technique on a cohort of 77 patients. J Pelvic Med Surg. 2008;14:163–71.CrossRef
18.Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny DA. Review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1128–37.CrossRef PubMed
19.Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, Cornella JL, Pettit PD, Chen AH, et al. Robot assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:2900–4.CrossRef
20.Hach CE, Krude J, Reitz A, Reiter M, Hafekamp A, Buse S. Mid-term results of robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol. 2015;26:1321–6.CrossRef
21.Ploumidis A, Spinoit AF, De Naeyer G, Shatteman P, Gan M, Ficarra V, Volpe A, Mottrie A Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and outcomes at a single high-volume institution. Eur Urol 65(1):138–145
22.Lenihan Jr JP, Kovanda C, Seshari-kreaden U. What is the learning-curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(5):589–94.CrossRef PubMed
23.Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Pelvic floor function before and after robotic sacrocolpopexy: one year outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(3):322–7.CrossRef PubMed
24.Bradley MS, Kantartzis KL, Lowder JL, Winger D, Wang L, Shepherd JP Adoption of robotic sacrocolpopexy at an academic instituition Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons July-Sept 2014 18(3)
  • 作者单位：Linda Ng (1)
    Sean W. Nealy (1)

    1. Department of Urology, Boston University School of Medicine, 725 Albany St. #3B, Boston, MA, 02118, USA
  • 刊物主题：Urology/Andrology;
  • 出版者：Springer US
  • ISSN：1931-7220
    • 文摘
    The purpose of this article is to update the debate on the impact of robotic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse with recent literature. Review of this subject will continue the analysis of the expansion of robotic surgery and its impact on the value and quality of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Up until recently, this area of study was dominated by retrospective data with conflicting evidence. The quality of literature on the subject has improved in the past 5 years. Randomized control trials have started reporting results that are more consistent between studies. Additionally, high-quality patient data from a Nationwide Inpatient Sample database has been available since introduction of the robotic modifier code for robotic surgery in 2008. Meta-analyses examining the differences amongst studies will also be discussed. This article will review the literature and examine the debate on the impact of robotic surgery on cost, patient safety, outcomes, and training.

    © 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

    地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083

    电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700