Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
Pelvic organ prolapse is defined as the permanent, partial or total displacement of the pelvic organs in the caudal direction towards the vaginal hiatus, several risk factors are pointed out for this dystopia such as: advanced age, vaginal multiparity, delivery with the use of forceps, obesity, hysterectomy, among others. Surgical treatment can be performed vaginally, abdominally, laparotomy, and laparoscopy; aiming at the physiological reestablishment of the vagina, preservation of the lower urinary tract and sexual functions. Minimally invasive surgery has grown exponentially since the approval of the Da Vinci Surgical System by the Food and Drug Administration (FAD) in 2000. And even with a scarcity of literature confirming its superiority in gynecological surgeries, it was quickly adopted by many hospitals. Compared with traditional laparoscopic surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery can reduce blood loss, increase lymph node procurement, reduce postoperative pain as well as hospitalization time. The present study had comparatively analyzed the minimally invasive abdominal surgical techniques of robotic and laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy, in order to understand if there are advantages of one technique over the other. For this purpose, was utilized The PRISMA guideline (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Papers were consulted in the PubMed (National Library of Medicine, USA), published between 2020 and 2024. Now we have a better understanding of the different minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
References
ASHTON-MILLER, J. A.; DELANCEY, J. O. L. Functional anatomy of the female pelvic floor. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, v. 1101, p. 266-296, 2015. DOI:10.1196/annals.1389.034.
BRITO, L. G. O. et al. Surgical outcomes of a combined surgical approach for apical prolapse repair. Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia, v. 38, n. 6, p. 405-411, 2016.
CORTON, M. M. Anatomy of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, v. 36, n. 3, p. 401–419, 2009. DOI:10.1016/j.ogc.2009.09.002.
DANESHPAJOOH, A. et al. Comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation in the treatment of vaginal apical prolapse: a pilot study. Urology Journal, v. 19, n. 2, p. 131-137, 2022.
EVANGELOPOULOS, N.; NESSI, A.; ACHTARI, C. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy. Journal of Robotic Surgery, v. 18, p. 72, 2024.
FERREIRA, D. J.; LIMA, A. P. Impact of sacrocolpopexy techniques on long-term pelvic function. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, v. 230, p. 97-109, 2022.
HORST, W.; SILVA, J. C. Prolapsos de órgãos pélvicos: revisando a literatura. Arquivos Catarinenses de Medicina, v. 45, n. 2, p. 91–101, 2016. Disponível em: https://revista.acm.org.br/index.php/arquivos/article/view/79. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2023.
KARADAG, B. et al. McCall culdoplasty vs. vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of advanced uterine prolapse: A randomized controlled study. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, v. 62, p. 325-329, 2023.
KELKAR, D. et al. Interim safety analysis of the first-in-human clinical trial of the Versius surgical system, a new robot-assisted device for use in minimal access surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, v. 35, p. 5193-5202, 2021.
LAMBADUIE, E. et al. The influence of surgical complexity and center experience on postoperative morbidity after minimally invasive surgery in gynecologic oncology: lessons learned from the ROBOGYN-1004 trial. Annals of Surgical Oncology, v. 31, p. 4566-4575, 2024.
MARTINS, L. F.; GOMES, P. R. The evolution of minimally invasive techniques in pelvic floor disorders. International Journal of Gynecological Surgery, v. 27, p. 58-73, 2021.
MATTHEWS, C. A. et al. Long-term mesh exposure after minimally invasive total hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. International Urogynecology Journal, v. 34, p. 291-296, 2023.
MURPHY, A. M.; CLARK, C. B.; DENISENKO, A. A.; D’AMICO, M. J.; VASAVADA, S. P. Surgical management of vaginal prolapse: current surgical concepts. The Canadian Journal of Urology, v. 28, n. S2, p. 22–26, 2021. Disponível em: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34453425/. Acesso em: 12 out. 2023.
OUDHEUSDEN, A. M. J. et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. International Urogynecology Journal, v. 34, p. 93-104, 2023.
REID, F. M. et al. PROSPECT: 4- and 6-year follow-up of a randomized trial of surgery for vaginal prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal, v. 34, p. 67-78, 2023.
RODRIGUES, C. B. et al. Outcomes of robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review. European Journal of Urology, v. 39, p. 250-262, 2023.
SILVA, R. A. et al. Comparative study on surgical approaches for pelvic organ prolapse. Brazilian Journal of Surgery, v. 29, p. 120-132, 2022.
SMITH, L. et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative study. International Journal of Urology, v. 26, p. 201-209, 2020.
SOUZA, M. T.; ALMEIDA, P. R. Robotic surgery in gynecology: state-of-the-art and future perspectives. Surgical Innovations, v. 30, p. 75-89, 2024.
YANG, J. et al. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Translational Medicine, v. 9, n. 6, p. 449, 2021.
YANG, J.; HE, Y.; ZHANG, X.; WANG, Z.; ZUO, X.; GAO, L.; HONG, L. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Translational Medicine, v. 9, n. 6, p. 449–449, 2021. DOI:10.21037/atm-20-4347.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Fabiana Zaidan C. dos Santos, Fernanda Zaidan C. de Mello, Bianca Gaioto, Vinícius Cestari do Amaral
