Single-Incision vs. Multiport Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: 126 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution

Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has gained popularity as a method for easier intracorporeal suturing than conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, few studies have compared multiport RSC (MP-RSC) and single-incision RSC (SI-RSC). We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical medicine 2021-09, Vol.10 (19), p.4457
Hauptverfasser: Nam, Gina, Lee, Sa-Ra, Roh, A-mi, Kim, Ju-Hee, Choi, Sungwook, Kim, Sung-Hoon, Chae, Hee-Dong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 19
container_start_page 4457
container_title Journal of clinical medicine
container_volume 10
creator Nam, Gina
Lee, Sa-Ra
Roh, A-mi
Kim, Ju-Hee
Choi, Sungwook
Kim, Sung-Hoon
Chae, Hee-Dong
description Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has gained popularity as a method for easier intracorporeal suturing than conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, few studies have compared multiport RSC (MP-RSC) and single-incision RSC (SI-RSC). We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between these techniques for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We analyzed 126 patients who underwent RSC for POP quantification (all stage III to IV) between March 2019 and May 2021 at Seoul Asan Medical Center. We prospectively collected operation-related data, including total operation time (OT; from skin incision to closure) and perioperative outcomes. A total of 106 and 20 patients underwent MP-RSC and SI-RSC, respectively. The mean ages were 57.49 ± 10.89 and 56.20 ± 10.30 years in the MP-RSC and SI-RSC groups, respectively. The mean total OT was significantly shorter for MP-RSC than for SI-RSC (105.43 ± 24.03 vs. 121.10 ± 26.28 min). The OT difference was 15.67 min (95% confidence interval, 3.90–25.85, p = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of perioperative variables (estimated blood loss, hospital stay) and postoperative adverse events (POP recurrence, mesh erosion). SI-RSC had comparable intraoperative and postoperative outcomes to MP-RSC, with additional cosmetic benefits. MP-RSC had significantly shorter OT than SI-RSC.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/jcm10194457
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8509716</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2581807056</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-c84a6782ce7b357bcf3419bfcd5e305e23a7a92cc777a3823bf1892f14dd88e33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkV1LwzAUhoMobsxd-QcC3gjSma82qReCFD8GE8HpdUizdGZ0SW3S4f69HROZnptz4H14Oee8AJxjNKE0R9crvcYI54yl_AgMCeI8QVTQ44N5AMYhrFBfQjCC-SkYUJYxxHg6BHpu3bI2ydRpG6x3cBMm8Lmro218G-GrL320Gs6Vbr32deMb87W9gZhksPAuGN1FuzGwUMEEqCJUcG8Ipy5EG3vVuzNwUqk6mPFPH4H3h_u34imZvTxOi7tZoqnIYqIFUxkXRBte0pSXuqIM52WlF6mhKDWEKq5yojXnXFFBaFlhkZMKs8VCCEPpCNzufZuuXJuFNi62qpZNa9eq3UqvrPyrOPshl34jRYpyjrPe4PLHoPWfnQlRrm3Qpq6VM74LkqQCC8RRukMv_qEr37WuP29HoTzHmOw2utpT_fdCaE31uwxGcpefPMiPfgNgfYyX</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2580991123</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Single-Incision vs. Multiport Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: 126 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution</title><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Nam, Gina ; Lee, Sa-Ra ; Roh, A-mi ; Kim, Ju-Hee ; Choi, Sungwook ; Kim, Sung-Hoon ; Chae, Hee-Dong</creator><creatorcontrib>Nam, Gina ; Lee, Sa-Ra ; Roh, A-mi ; Kim, Ju-Hee ; Choi, Sungwook ; Kim, Sung-Hoon ; Chae, Hee-Dong</creatorcontrib><description>Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has gained popularity as a method for easier intracorporeal suturing than conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, few studies have compared multiport RSC (MP-RSC) and single-incision RSC (SI-RSC). We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between these techniques for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We analyzed 126 patients who underwent RSC for POP quantification (all stage III to IV) between March 2019 and May 2021 at Seoul Asan Medical Center. We prospectively collected operation-related data, including total operation time (OT; from skin incision to closure) and perioperative outcomes. A total of 106 and 20 patients underwent MP-RSC and SI-RSC, respectively. The mean ages were 57.49 ± 10.89 and 56.20 ± 10.30 years in the MP-RSC and SI-RSC groups, respectively. The mean total OT was significantly shorter for MP-RSC than for SI-RSC (105.43 ± 24.03 vs. 121.10 ± 26.28 min). The OT difference was 15.67 min (95% confidence interval, 3.90–25.85, p = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of perioperative variables (estimated blood loss, hospital stay) and postoperative adverse events (POP recurrence, mesh erosion). SI-RSC had comparable intraoperative and postoperative outcomes to MP-RSC, with additional cosmetic benefits. MP-RSC had significantly shorter OT than SI-RSC.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2077-0383</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2077-0383</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/jcm10194457</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34640475</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basel: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Clinical medicine ; Hospitals ; Hysterectomy ; Laparoscopy ; Length of stay ; Patients ; Robotics ; Skin ; Statistical analysis ; Surgery ; Surgical mesh ; Surgical outcomes ; Sutures ; Vagina</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical medicine, 2021-09, Vol.10 (19), p.4457</ispartof><rights>2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 by the authors. 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-c84a6782ce7b357bcf3419bfcd5e305e23a7a92cc777a3823bf1892f14dd88e33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-c84a6782ce7b357bcf3419bfcd5e305e23a7a92cc777a3823bf1892f14dd88e33</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7890-8348 ; 0000-0002-8103-7758 ; 0000-0001-5713-7743</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8509716/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8509716/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nam, Gina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Sa-Ra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roh, A-mi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Ju-Hee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Sungwook</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Sung-Hoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chae, Hee-Dong</creatorcontrib><title>Single-Incision vs. Multiport Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: 126 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution</title><title>Journal of clinical medicine</title><description>Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has gained popularity as a method for easier intracorporeal suturing than conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, few studies have compared multiport RSC (MP-RSC) and single-incision RSC (SI-RSC). We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between these techniques for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We analyzed 126 patients who underwent RSC for POP quantification (all stage III to IV) between March 2019 and May 2021 at Seoul Asan Medical Center. We prospectively collected operation-related data, including total operation time (OT; from skin incision to closure) and perioperative outcomes. A total of 106 and 20 patients underwent MP-RSC and SI-RSC, respectively. The mean ages were 57.49 ± 10.89 and 56.20 ± 10.30 years in the MP-RSC and SI-RSC groups, respectively. The mean total OT was significantly shorter for MP-RSC than for SI-RSC (105.43 ± 24.03 vs. 121.10 ± 26.28 min). The OT difference was 15.67 min (95% confidence interval, 3.90–25.85, p = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of perioperative variables (estimated blood loss, hospital stay) and postoperative adverse events (POP recurrence, mesh erosion). SI-RSC had comparable intraoperative and postoperative outcomes to MP-RSC, with additional cosmetic benefits. MP-RSC had significantly shorter OT than SI-RSC.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Length of stay</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>Skin</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical mesh</subject><subject>Surgical outcomes</subject><subject>Sutures</subject><subject>Vagina</subject><issn>2077-0383</issn><issn>2077-0383</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkV1LwzAUhoMobsxd-QcC3gjSma82qReCFD8GE8HpdUizdGZ0SW3S4f69HROZnptz4H14Oee8AJxjNKE0R9crvcYI54yl_AgMCeI8QVTQ44N5AMYhrFBfQjCC-SkYUJYxxHg6BHpu3bI2ydRpG6x3cBMm8Lmro218G-GrL320Gs6Vbr32deMb87W9gZhksPAuGN1FuzGwUMEEqCJUcG8Ipy5EG3vVuzNwUqk6mPFPH4H3h_u34imZvTxOi7tZoqnIYqIFUxkXRBte0pSXuqIM52WlF6mhKDWEKq5yojXnXFFBaFlhkZMKs8VCCEPpCNzufZuuXJuFNi62qpZNa9eq3UqvrPyrOPshl34jRYpyjrPe4PLHoPWfnQlRrm3Qpq6VM74LkqQCC8RRukMv_qEr37WuP29HoTzHmOw2utpT_fdCaE31uwxGcpefPMiPfgNgfYyX</recordid><startdate>20210928</startdate><enddate>20210928</enddate><creator>Nam, Gina</creator><creator>Lee, Sa-Ra</creator><creator>Roh, A-mi</creator><creator>Kim, Ju-Hee</creator><creator>Choi, Sungwook</creator><creator>Kim, Sung-Hoon</creator><creator>Chae, Hee-Dong</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7890-8348</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-7758</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5713-7743</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210928</creationdate><title>Single-Incision vs. Multiport Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: 126 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution</title><author>Nam, Gina ; Lee, Sa-Ra ; Roh, A-mi ; Kim, Ju-Hee ; Choi, Sungwook ; Kim, Sung-Hoon ; Chae, Hee-Dong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c386t-c84a6782ce7b357bcf3419bfcd5e305e23a7a92cc777a3823bf1892f14dd88e33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Length of stay</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>Skin</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical mesh</topic><topic>Surgical outcomes</topic><topic>Sutures</topic><topic>Vagina</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nam, Gina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Sa-Ra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roh, A-mi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Ju-Hee</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choi, Sungwook</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Sung-Hoon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chae, Hee-Dong</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nam, Gina</au><au>Lee, Sa-Ra</au><au>Roh, A-mi</au><au>Kim, Ju-Hee</au><au>Choi, Sungwook</au><au>Kim, Sung-Hoon</au><au>Chae, Hee-Dong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Single-Incision vs. Multiport Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: 126 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical medicine</jtitle><date>2021-09-28</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>19</issue><spage>4457</spage><pages>4457-</pages><issn>2077-0383</issn><eissn>2077-0383</eissn><abstract>Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has gained popularity as a method for easier intracorporeal suturing than conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, few studies have compared multiport RSC (MP-RSC) and single-incision RSC (SI-RSC). We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between these techniques for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We analyzed 126 patients who underwent RSC for POP quantification (all stage III to IV) between March 2019 and May 2021 at Seoul Asan Medical Center. We prospectively collected operation-related data, including total operation time (OT; from skin incision to closure) and perioperative outcomes. A total of 106 and 20 patients underwent MP-RSC and SI-RSC, respectively. The mean ages were 57.49 ± 10.89 and 56.20 ± 10.30 years in the MP-RSC and SI-RSC groups, respectively. The mean total OT was significantly shorter for MP-RSC than for SI-RSC (105.43 ± 24.03 vs. 121.10 ± 26.28 min). The OT difference was 15.67 min (95% confidence interval, 3.90–25.85, p = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in terms of perioperative variables (estimated blood loss, hospital stay) and postoperative adverse events (POP recurrence, mesh erosion). SI-RSC had comparable intraoperative and postoperative outcomes to MP-RSC, with additional cosmetic benefits. MP-RSC had significantly shorter OT than SI-RSC.</abstract><cop>Basel</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>34640475</pmid><doi>10.3390/jcm10194457</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7890-8348</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8103-7758</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5713-7743</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2077-0383
ispartof Journal of clinical medicine, 2021-09, Vol.10 (19), p.4457
issn 2077-0383
2077-0383
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8509716
source MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; PubMed Central Open Access
subjects Abdomen
Clinical medicine
Hospitals
Hysterectomy
Laparoscopy
Length of stay
Patients
Robotics
Skin
Statistical analysis
Surgery
Surgical mesh
Surgical outcomes
Sutures
Vagina
title Single-Incision vs. Multiport Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: 126 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T08%3A40%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Single-Incision%20vs.%20Multiport%20Robotic%20Sacrocolpopexy:%20126%20Consecutive%20Cases%20at%20a%20Single%20Institution&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20medicine&rft.au=Nam,%20Gina&rft.date=2021-09-28&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=4457&rft.pages=4457-&rft.issn=2077-0383&rft.eissn=2077-0383&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/jcm10194457&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2581807056%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2580991123&rft_id=info:pmid/34640475&rfr_iscdi=true