Postoperative adverse events and re-treatment among patients who have undergone laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan.
Asia
laparoscopic surgical procedure
pelvic organ prolapse
postoperative complications
recurrence
robotic surgical procedures
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
revised:
12
09
2022
received:
14
06
2022
accepted:
03
10
2022
pubmed:
7
10
2022
medline:
17
3
2023
entrez:
6
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To describe and compare the postoperative adverse events and re-treatment for recurrence after laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy in Japanese patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This was a retrospective cohort study using the DeSC database, which contains claims and medical check-up data provided by DeSC Healthcare Inc., Tokyo, Japan. We identified all patients who had undergone either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy from April 2014 to May 2021. Patient backgrounds and postoperative outcomes were compared between the laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy groups. Moreover, the composite adverse event comprising vaginal erosion, postoperative urinary incontinence, postoperative dysuria, urinary tract injury, and abdominal incisional hernia was evaluated. Re-treatment for POP recurrence included pessary use and surgery for POP was also evaluated. Among 28 748 patients diagnosed with POP, 409 (1.4%) had undergone laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and 52 (0.2%) had undergone robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. The prevalence of postoperative adverse events was 20.8% and 13.5% in the laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy groups, respectively (P = 0.270). One patient (1.9%) underwent surgery after robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy, and none of the patients was administered pessaries postoperatively in both groups. In Japan, postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic and robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy are similar and comparable to those reported in western countries.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
114-119Informations de copyright
© 2022 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
Kurkijärvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, Mäkinen J. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Finland from 1987 to 2009: A national register based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;214:71-77. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.004
Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201-1206. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286
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):501-506. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6
Wu JM, Dieter AA, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Cumulative Incidence of a Subsequent Surgery After Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(6):1124-1130. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002051
Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O'Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):360.e1-360.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016
Maher CF, Connelly LB. Cost minimization analysis of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and total vaginal mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(5):433.e1-433.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.12.012
Chang CL, Chen CH, Chang SJ. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(2):297-308. doi:10.1007/s00192-021-04741-x
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):44-49. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf
Yang J, He Y, Zhang X, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med. 2021;9(6):449. doi:10.21037/atm-20-4347
Lallemant M, Tresch C, Puyraveau M, Delplanque S, Cosson M, Ramanah R. Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg. 2021;15(5):785-792. doi:10.1007/s11701-020-01177-1
Okada A, Yasunaga H. Prevalence of Noncommunicable Diseases in Japan Using a Newly Developed Administrative Claims Database Covering Young, Middle-aged, and Elderly People. JMA J. 2022;5(2):190-198. doi:10.31662/jmaj.2021-0189
Sato H, Abe H, Ikeda A, Miyagawa T, Sato K. Complications and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41(1):128-132. doi:10.1080/01443615.2020.1724914
Brown HW, Hegde A, Huebner M, et al. International urogynecology consultation chapter 1 committee 2: Epidemiology of pelvic organ prolapse: prevalence, incidence, natural history, and service needs. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(2):173-187. doi:10.1007/s00192-021-05018-z
Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):795-806. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.602
Kanasaki H, Oride A, Hara T, Kyo S. Comparative retrospective study of tension-free vaginal mesh surgery, native tissue repair, and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2020;10(2020):7367403. doi:10.1155/2020/7367403
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.
Obinata D, Sugihara T, Yasunaga H, et al. Tension-free vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: analysis of perioperative outcomes using a Japanese national inpatient database. Int J Urol. 2018;25(7):655-659. doi:10.1111/iju.13587
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5-12. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006 Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol 2014 Jul;124(1):165.
Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, Visco AG, Havrilesky LJ, Wu JM. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17(4):493-499. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2010.03.011
Sato H, Abe H, Ikeda A, Miyagawa T, Sato K, Tsukada S. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in the elderly: safety and outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;42(1):110-115. doi:10.1080/01443615.2020.1867968
Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559-1573. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8