Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: A retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 230-237

  Robinson, Barbara L ^a   Parnell, Brent A ^a   Sandbulte, Jennifer T ^b   Geller, Elizabeth J ^b   Connolly, Anna Marie ^b   Matthews, Catherine A ^b  

^a MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Complications; Elderly; Robotic surgery

Indexed keywords

REPAIR; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROBOTICS;

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM; COMPLICATIONS; ELDERLY; ELDERLY POPULATIONS; MEDICAL RECORD; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PRIMARY OBJECTIVE; ROBOTIC SURGERY;

SURGERY;

AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMORBIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELDERLY CARE; FEMALE; GERIATRIC SURGERY; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HUMAN; HYSTERECTOMY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OPERATION DURATION; OPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS; PEROPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ROBOTIC UROGYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; SALPINGOOOPHORECTOMY; SPHINCTEROPLASTY; VAGINAL UROGYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; AGE; BODY MASS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEALTH STATUS; NATURAL ORIFICE TRANSLUMINAL ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; PATIENT SELECTION; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; RISK FACTOR; ROBOTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UROLOGIC SURGERY; VAGINA; VERY ELDERLY;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BODY MASS INDEX; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; NATURAL ORIFICE ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; PATIENT SELECTION; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; ROBOTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UROGENITAL SURGICAL PROCEDURES; VAGINA;

EID: 84882977858     PISSN: 21518378     EISSN: 21544212     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318299a66c     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Tibblin G, et al. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:299-305.
2. MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, et al. The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG 2000;107:1460-1470.
3. Oliphant SS, Jones KA, Wang L, et al. Trends over time with commonly performed obstetric and gynecologic inpatient procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:926-931.
4. Henderson WG, Daley J. Design and statistical methodology of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: why is it what it is? Am J Surg 2009;198:S19-S27.
5. Daley J, Henderson WG, Khuri SF. Risk-adjusted surgical outcomes. Annu Rev Med 2001;52:275-287.
6. Heisler CA, Weaver AL, Melton LJ 3rd, et al. Effect of additional reconstructive surgery on perioperative and postoperative morbidity in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:720-726.
7. Dasgupta M, Rolfson DB, Stolee P, et al. Frailty is associated with postoperative complications in older adults with medical problems. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2009;48:78-83.
8. Snyder TE, Krantz KE. Abdominal-retroperitoneal sacral colpopexy for the correction of vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:944-949.
9. Richter K, Albrich W. Long-term results following fixation of the vagina on the sacrospinal ligament by the vaginal route (vaginaefixatio sacrospinalis vaginalis). Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;141:811-816.
10. Morley GW, DeLancey JO. Sacrospinous ligament fixation for eversion of the vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:872-881.
11. Jenkins VR 2nd. Uterosacral ligament fixation for vaginal vault suspension in uterine and vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:1337-1343; discussion 1343-1344.
12. Paraiso MF. Surgery for apical vaginal prolapse. Curr Womens Health Rep 2002;2:285-290.
13. Agarwala N, Hasiak N, Shade M. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with Gynemesh as graft material-experience and results. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:577-583.
14. Abed H, Rahn DD, Lowenstein L, et al. Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22:789-798.
15. Mazer C, Isral SL. The Le Fort colpocleisis; an analysis of 43 operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1948;56:944-949.
16. Adams HD. Total colpocleisis for pelvic eventration. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1951;92:321-324.
17. Cox KE, Lamar RF. Colpocleisis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1953;65:583-591.
18. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:805-823.
19. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;CD004014.
20. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:1201-1206.
21. Matthews CA. Robot-assisted laparoscopic colposacropexy and cervicosacropexy with the da Vinci(R) surgical system. Surg Technol Int 2010;20:232-238.
22. Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Pelvic floor function before and after robotic sacrocolpopexy: one-year outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:322-327.
23. Parnell BA, Matthews CA. Robot-assisted techniques and outcomes in the realm of pelvic reconstructive surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2011;54:412-419.
24. Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL Jr. ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978;49:239-243.
25. American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System. 2011. Available at: http://www.asahq.org/For-Members/Clinical- Information/ASA-Physical-Status-Classification-System.aspx. Accessed April, 2011.
26. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-383.
27. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
28. Upholdi Vaginal Support System. 2009. Available at: http://www. bostonscientific.com/templatedata/imports/multimedia/Gynecology/Uphold/ Uphold-Brochure.pdf. Accessed April, 2011
29. Geller EJ, Lin FC, Matthews CA. Analysis of robotic performance times to improve operative efficiency. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:43-48.
30. Akl MN, Long JB, Giles DL, et al. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve. Surg Endosc 2009;23:2390-2394.
31. Stepp KJ, Barber MD, Yoo EH, et al. Incidence of perioperative complications of urogynecologic surgery in elderly women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1630-1636.
32. Toglia MR, Nolan TE. Morbidity and mortality rates of elective gynecologic surgery in the elderly woman. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:1584-1587; discussion 1587-1589.