Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: operative times and efficiency in a high-volume female pelvic medicine and laparoscopic surgery practice

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

There has been a trend toward robotic sacrocolpopexy in the United States despite longer operating times and higher costs compared with traditional laparoscopy. The current study objective was to evaluate incision to closure times of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in a urogynecologic practice with extensive experience in the laparoscopic approach for pelvic reconstruction.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective evaluation of consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse using a permanent polypropylene Y-mesh over a 1-year period. Standard operative technique for sacrocolpopexy was used. Four to six sutures were placed on the anterior leaflet of the mesh, and six to eight sutures were placed posteriorly. Two sutures were placed in the presacral ligament. Mesh was retroperitonealized with a running 2–0 monocryl suture. Primary outcomes were total operating time and time to complete laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Results

One hundred and twenty-seven consecutive patients with an average age of 60.04 ± 10.14 years, body mass index (BMI) 25.79 ± 4.52 kg/m2, underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Ninety-two patients had other procedures performed intraoperatively: laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy, laparoscopic paravaginal repair, laparoscopic enterocele repair, and/or laparoscopic enterolysis. Mean total operative time for all laparoscopic procedures completed was 107.45 ± 34.00 min. The average time to perform sacrocolpopexy, including incision and closure, was 52.78 ± 13.09 min.

Conclusion

This retrospective evaluation provides further evidence that traditional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy should be considered a primary therapy for vaginal vault prolapse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(3):437–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, et al. Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:646–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in US Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1278–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Maher 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.pub5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. De 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2004;24(11):1815–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Visco AG, Advincula AP. Robotic gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1369–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Moore RD, Miklos JR. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Surg Technol Int. 2008;17:195.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):303–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stepanian AA, Miklos JR, Moore RD, Mattox TF. Risk of mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(2):188–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miklos JR, Moore RD, Chinthakanan O. The 26-minute sacral colpopexy: do we really need robotic technology? JMIG. 2014;21(6):S56–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, et al. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1128–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):493–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):377–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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;124(1):165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Barbash GI, Glied SA. New technology and health care costs—the case of robot-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):701–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wright JD, Ananth CV, Tergas AI, Herzog TJ, Burke WM, Lewin SN, et al. An economic analysis of robotically assisted hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):1038–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Macario A. What does one minute of operating room time cost? J Clin Anesth. 2010;22(4):233–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ploumidis A, Spinoit AF, De Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Gan M, Ficarra V, et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: surgical technique and outcomes at a single high-volume institution. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):138–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chan SS, Pang SM, Cheung TH, Cheung RY, Chung TK. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic assistance. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(1):54–60.

  28. Sarlos D, Kots LA. Robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: a review of recent comparative studies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;23(4):283–8. doi:10.1097/GCO.0b013e328348a26e.

  29. Seror J1, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker MO, Chartier-Kastler E, Rouprêt M. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robotassisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol. 2012;30(3):393–8. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0748-2.

  30. Awad N, Mustafa S, Amit A, Deutsch M, Eldor-Itskovitz J, Lowenstein L. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(6):1181–6. doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2691-x.

  31. Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):43–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Claerhout F, Roovers JP, Lewi P, Verguts J, De Ridder D, Deprest J. Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy—a single centre’s experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(9):1119–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1185–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Urogynecology Associates, 3400 Old Milton Pkwy, Alpharetta, GA, 30005, USA

    Robert Moore, Christopher Moriarty, Orawee Chinthakanan & John Miklos

Authors
  1. Robert Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher Moriarty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Orawee Chinthakanan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Miklos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Moore.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare the following conflicts of interest: Robert Moore accepted travel expenses and speaking fees, payment for research, and acted as a consultant to American Medical Systems, Christopher Moriarty none, Orawee Chinthakanan none, John Miklos accepted travel expenses and speaking fees, payment for research, and acted as a consultant to Coloplast, Gyrus Olympus, and Cooper.

Additional information

IRB Information

Sterling IRB approval acquired: #4253

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moore, R., Moriarty, C., Chinthakanan, O. et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: operative times and efficiency in a high-volume female pelvic medicine and laparoscopic surgery practice. Int Urogynecol J 28, 887–892 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3179-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3179-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation