Home > Riviste > Minerva Ginecologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Ginecologica 2019 February;71(1) > Minerva Ginecologica 2019 February;71(1):4-17

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

REVIEW  INNOVATIONS IN GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 

Minerva Ginecologica 2019 February;71(1):4-17

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.18.04331-9

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Role of robotic surgery on pelvic floor reconstruction

Andrea GIANNINI, Eleonora RUSSO, Elisa MALACARNE, Elena CECCHI, Paolo MANNELLA, Tommaso SIMONCINI

Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy



Over the past two decades, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) abdominal surgery has increasingly been used to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Besides the several advantages associated with minimal invasiveness, this approach bridged the gap between the benefits of vaginal surgery and the surgical success rates of open abdominal procedures. The most commonly performed procedure for suspension of the vaginal apex for postoperative vaginal prolapse by robotic-assisted laparoscopy is the sacrocolpopexy. Conventional laparoscopic application of this procedure was first reported in 1994 by Nezhat et al. and had not gained widespread adoption due to lengthy learning curve associated with laparoscopic suturing. Since FDA approval of the da Vinci® robot for gynecologic surgery in 2005, minimally invasive abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse has become increasingly popular, as robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is an option for those surgeons without experience or training in the conventional route. Robotic surgery has made its way into the armamentarium of POP treatment and has allowed pelvic surgeons to adapt the “gold standard” technique of abdominal sacrocolpopexy to a minimally invasive approach with improved intraoperative morbidity and decreased convalescence. In fact, repair of pelvic organ prolapse can be performed robotically, and sometimes surgeons can feel suturing and dissection during the procedures less challenging with the assistance of the robot. However, even if robotic surgery may confer many benefits over conventional laparoscopy, these advantages should continue to be weighed against the cost of the technology. To date, as long-term outcomes, evidence about robotic sacrocolpopexy for a repair of pelvic organ prolapse are not conclusive, and much more investigations are needed to evaluate subjective and objective outcomes, perioperative and postoperative adverse events, and costs associated with these procedures. It is plausible to think that the main advantage is that robotics may lead to a widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in the field of pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The following review will address the development and current state of robotic assistance in treating pelvic floor reconstruction discussing available data about the techniques of robotic prolapse repair as well as morbidity, costs and clinical outcomes.


KEY WORDS: Robotics - Surgery - Pelvic organ prolapse - Reconstructive surgical procedures - Minimally invasive surgery

inizio pagina