Progrès en urologie (2014) 24, 1106—1113
Disponible en ligne sur
ScienceDirect www.sciencedirect.com
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women Comparaison des résultats fonctionnels de la promontofixation cœlioscopique vs robot-assistée dans une population obèse M. Joubert b, T. Thubert a,∗,b, J.-P. Lefranc b, C. Vaessen c, É. Chartier-Kastler c, X. Deffieux a, M. Rouprêt c a
Service de gynécologie obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, hôpital Antoine-Béclère, AP—HP, 157, rue de la Porte-de-Trivaux, 92140 Clamart, France b Service de chirurgie gynécologie, hôpital La Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP—HP, 83, boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France c Academic department of urology, université Paris 6, Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital, Assistance publique—Hôpitaux de Paris, 83, boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France Received 12 July 2014; accepted 22 September 2014 Available online 16 October 2014
KEYWORDS Genital prolapse; Laparoscopy; Obesity; Robot-assisted surgery; Sacrocolpopexy
∗
Summary Objective. — To compare the functional outcomes and complication rates following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) with those occurring in robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP) in obese women. Patients and methods. — A comparative retrospective multicentre study was made, involving 39 obese women (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 ) who underwent LS, and 17 obese women who underwent RASCLP. The operative parameters (length of operation, associated procedures, complication rate and length of hospitalization) and the objective and subjective results were evaluated at 12 months follow-up. Results. — The median (IQR) BMI was 30.5 kg/m2 (30—32) in the LS group vs 31.6 kg/m2 (30—34) in the RALSCP group (P = 0.402). The anatomical results were comparable in both groups (LS vs
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Thubert).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2014.09.045 1166-7087/© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted
1107
RALSCP): post-operative stage of prolapse (POP-Q-ICS): stage 0—1: 34/39 (88%) vs 16/17 (94.1%), P = 0.7; stage 2: 4/39 (10%) vs 0/17 (0%), P = 0.7; stage 3—4: 1/39 (2%) vs 1/17 (5.9%), P = 0.7. The complication rate was similar in both groups (LS vs RALSCP): bladder injury 2.5% (1/39) vs 0% (0/17), P = 0.6, laparoconversion 5.1% (2/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.5. The overall reoperation rate was (LS vs RALSCP): 18% (7/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.4. Conclusion. — Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy have equal results in obese women. The complication rates and outcomes appear to be similar in both groups of obese women. Level of evidence. — 3. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
MOTS CLÉS Prolapsus génital ; Cœlioscopie ; Obésité ; Chirurgie robot-assistée ; Promontofixation
Résumé But. — Le but de notre étude était de comparer la voie cœlioscopique et la chirurgie robotassistée dans une population obèse. Matériels. — Étude rétrospective comparative multicentrique comparant deux techniques de promontofixation : cœlioscopie (groupe 1, n = 39) vs chirurgie robot-assistée (RALSCP) (groupe 2, n = 17). Les caractéristiques des patientes, les paramètres opératoires, complications et les résultats anatomiques à court terme (12 mois) ont été évalués. Résultats. — L’IMC était de 30,5 kg/m2 (30—32) dans le groupe 1 vs 31,6 kg/m2 (30—34) dans le groupe 2 (p = 0,402). Les résultats anatomiques à court terme sont identiques dans les deux groupes : stade 0—1 : 34/39 (88 %) vs 16/17 (94,1 %) ; stade 2 : 4/39 (10 %) vs 0/17 (0 %) ; stade 3—4 : 1/39 (2 %) vs 1/17 (0 %), p = 0,762. Le taux de complication était similaire dans les deux groupes (cœlioscopie vs RALSCP) : plaie vésicale 2,5 % (1/39) vs 0 % (0/17), p = 0,6, laparoconversion 5,1 % (2/39) vs 5,9 % (1/17), p = 0,5. Le taux global de ré-intervention était de (cœlioscopie vs RALSCP) : 18 % (7/39) vs 5,9 % (1/17), p = 0,4. Conclusion. — Les résultats de la promontofixation cœlioscopique et robot-assistée semblent comparables chez les femmes obèses en termes de résultats anatomiques et de complications. Niveau de preuve. — 3. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Introduction Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition. By the age of 80, a woman’s lifetime risk of undergoing a surgical procedure for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or POP is estimated to be 11% [1]. A minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for the treatment of POP (sacrocolpopexy) has been developed in recent years, and has been shown to be comparable to conventional surgery in terms of functional outcome, whilst demonstrating all of the advantages of laparoscopy [2]. Obesity, which is defined by a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 , is endemic in industrialized countries. In 2008, the prevalence of obesity in the United States was estimated to exceed 30% in the adult population, and the combined age-adjusted prevalence of overweight and obesity among women was 64.1% (95% CI, 61.3%—66.9%) [3]. In 2010, an estimated 17% of adults were obese in the European Union [4]. POP surgery is required for some obese women, and sacrocolpopexy is considered to be one of the gold standards for the surgical treatment of POP. Since 2004, a robotassisted laparoscopic approach to sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP) has been proposed as a viable alternative to the purely laparoscopic technique [5—7]. RALSCP appears to be a practical option for obese women, having similar rates of complication and equivalent outcomes to those reported for
non-obese women [8]. One recent study compared the LS and RALSCP approaches in a normal-weight population [9]. However, there is currently no specific data comparing LS and RALSCP in obese women. The aim of our study was thus to compare the operative and functional outcomes of LS and RALSCP in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2 .
Methods Population In this study, we retrospectively reviewed all of the prospective data collected from obese female patients who had undergone RALSCP or LS between January 2008 and January 2013, and who had attended any one of five tertiary care centres in France. The following parameters were extracted from their charts: age at the time of surgery, BMI, menopause status, initial stage of genital prolapse (according to the Baden and Walker classification) [10], past medical history, obstetric and surgical histories, past prolapse treatment(s), date of the sacrocolpopexy procedure, operative and perioperative data, complications, anatomical results, and functional results. Each patient underwent a pre-operative work-up, including urine analysis, a Pap smear, pelvic ultrasonography,
1108
M. Joubert et al.
and urodynamic exploration. Objective assessment of POP was carried out using a split speculum during a Valsalva manoeuver in the gynaecological position, following the POP ICS stage of POP [10]. Each surgeon performed a prolapse-reduction manoeuver using sponge-holding forceps in order to reveal the possible presence of masked urinary-stress incontinence. Operative and perioperative data included: concomitant surgical procedure (subtotal hysterectomy or mid-urethral sling); conversion to a laparotomy or a vaginal procedure; length of the operation; blood loss; type of anaesthesia (according to the WHO classification); occurrence of complications; analgesic requirements; and length of hospital stay. The Ethical Review Committee (CEROG) examined the present study and found that it complied with the generally accepted scientific principles and ethical standards of medical research, and was in agreement with the laws and regulations of the country in which the research experiment was carried out (submission number CEROG-GYN-2011-0801; CNGOF, Paris).
sutured with non-absorbable sutures along the full length of the posterior vaginal wall and into the levator ani muscles. The upper extremity of the anterior mesh was sutured with a non-absorbable suture to the anterior vertebral ligament at the level of the sacral promontory. Complete peritonization of the meshes was achieved by attaching the edges of the peritoneum using an absorbable suture. For both surgical procedures, the surgical time was defined as the duration of the procedure (excluding preparation and docking of the robot used for the RALSCP), plus the time required for insertion of the ports.
Surgical procedure
Follow-up
A laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy was performed by a senior surgeon on all patients, in accordance with the method statement provided hereafter. A pneumoperitoneum was created and four laparoscopic ports were placed: one 10 mm umbilical port, one 10 mm midline suprapubic port, and two 5 mm lateral ports. Following identification of the right ureter, the left iliac vein and the iliac-vessel junction, the peritoneum above the sacral promontory was incised medially to the right ureter and laterally to the sigmoid colon. Either a prosthetic macroporous monofilament polypropylene mesh, or a polyester mesh, were used in 2/39 (5.2%) and 37/39 (94.8%) patients, respectively. The bladder was dissected from the upper half of the anterior vaginal wall. A mesh was sutured to the anterior wall of the vagina using a non-absorbable suture. A posterior mesh was placed in 3/39 (7.6%) of patients, as a consequence of the presence of a posterior compartment vault (elythrocele, rectocele or enterocele). For the posterior mesh placement, a rectovaginal dissection was performed down to the level of the levator ani muscles, and a mesh was placed and sutured to the levator ani muscles using a non-absorbable suture, along the full length of the posterior vaginal wall. The upper extremity of the anterior mesh was sutured to the anterior vertebral ligament in front of the sacral promontory, using a non-absorbable suture. Complete peritonisation of the meshes was achieved by joining the edges of the peritoneum with an absorbable suture. Concerning the RALSCP, all procedures were carried out with a three-arm da Vinci® surgical system, using the transperitoneal four-port technique, as described previously [9]. Two surgeons performed RALSCP on all of the women. These surgeons had already completed their training and carried out sacrocolpopexy by LS or RALSCP with the same operative skill. Following identification of the right ureter, the left iliac vein, and the iliac-vessel junction, the peritoneum over the sacral promontory was incised medially to the right ureter and laterally to the sigmoid colon. For the placement of the posterior mesh, the rectovagina was dissected down to the level of the levator ani muscles, and a mesh was placed and
Post-operative follow-up visits were scheduled at 6 and 12 months, and then every year. During these visits, the POP was assessed using the POP ICS quantification. The surgery was considered to have been successful if the patient was symptomatically satisfied and the POP score was below stage 2 for all compartments.
Complications Concerning the reporting of morbidity and surgical complications, the authors followed the 10 criteria proposed by Martin et al. in 2002, as well as those established by the International Urogynecological Association/International continence society (IUGA/ICS), as stated in the European Guidelines [11,12].
Statistical analysis The data was statistically analysed using the R statistical software (Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Paris, France). The descriptive statistics are given in the form of median values and IQRs (interquartile range). The Mann—Whitney U-test was used to compare continuous variables, and Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical variables. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Results Population Thirty-nine obese patients underwent a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (group 1), and 17 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (group 2). The median (IQR) BMI was 30.5 kg/m2 (30—32) in group 1 vs 31.6 kg/m2 (30—34) in group 2 (P = 0.4). The median age was 54 years (48—58) in group 1 vs 63 (56—69) in group 2 (P = 0.002). There was no statistical difference between the two groups for any of the other patient characteristics. These results are summarized in Table 1.
Surgery The surgical data are shown in Table 2. No significant difference was observed between the groups, with respect to the need for a concomitant procedure, such as a subtotal hysterectomy or a mid-urethral sling. The perioperative
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted Table 1
1109
Patient’s characteristics.
n BMI (kg/m2 ) median (IQR) [Extrem] Age (years) median (IQR) Parity (n) median (IQR) Post-menopausal status n (%) Pessary use n (%) Pelvic floor rehabilitation n (%) Tobacco use n (%) Previous C-section n (%) Previous hysterectomy n (%) Previous POP surgery n (%) POP stage (ICS POP-Q) Stage 0—1 Stage 2 Stage 3—4 Bp (ICS POP-Q) Stage 0—1 Stage 2 Stage 3—4 SUI patent n (%) SUI masked n (%)
Laparoscopy
RASCLP
P
39 30.48 (30—32) [30—42] 54 (48—58) 2 (2.0—3.5) 21/39 (54%) 1/37 (2.7%) 5/37 (13.5%) 6/39 (15%) 4/39 (10%) 2/39 (5%) 9/39 (23%) 0/39 (0%) 3/39 (8%) 36/39 (92%)
17 31.6 (30—34) [30—36] 63 (56—69) 3 (1—3) 15/17 (83.3%) 1/17 (5.6%) 1/17 (5.6%) 1/17 (5.6%) 3/17 (16.7%) 4/17 (22.2%) 2/17 (11.2%) 0/17 (0%) 2/17 (11.2%) 15/17 (88.8%)
14/39 (36%) 15/39 (38%) 10/39 (26%)
5/17 (29.4%) 6/17 (35.3%) 6/17 (29.4%)
0.870b 0.940b 0.679b
5/39 (13%) 13/34c (38%)
2/17 (11.2%) 10/15c (66.7%)
0.741b 0.894b
0.402a 0.002a 0.220a 0.030b 0.804b 0.716b 0.582b 0.741b 0.114b 0.539b 0.985b
BMI: body mass index; ICS: international continence society; IQR: interquartile range; POP: pelvic organ prolapse; POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification grading system; SUI: stress urinary incontinence. a Welch two sample t-test (Student t-test). b Pearson’s Chi2 test with Yates’ continuity correction (Chi2 test). c Patients without patent stress incontinence.
complication rate was similar in both groups. In particular, for the LS group and RALSCP groups respectively: bladder injury 2.5% (1/39) vs 0% (0/17), P = 0.6; and laparoconversion for perioperative complications 5.1% (2/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.6. Conversion to abdominal laparotomy was
Table 2
required for one patient (5.9%) in group 2, as a consequence of pneumoperitoneum intolerance. In the LS group, a conversion to abdominal laparotomy was required for 2 patients (5.1%), as a result of vessel injuries. Both of these cases resulted from difficult access to the promontory, due
Operative data.
n Concomitant subtotal hysterectomy n (%) Concomitant mid-urethral sling n (%) Mesh location n (%) Anterior mesh only Posterior mesh only Both anterior and posterior meshes Operative duration (min) Median (IQR) Hospital length of stay (days) median (IQR)
Laparoscopy
RASCLP
P
39 13/37a (35%)
17 2/13a (15.4%)
0.324b
13/39 (33%)
11/17 (64.7%)
0.059b < 0.005b
3/39 (8%) 2/39 (5%) 34/39 (87%)
0/17 (0%) 0/17 (0%) 17/17 (0%)
190 (160—237)
220 (170—320)
0.253c
4 (3.0—4.0)
4 (4—5)
0.989c
n: number; IQR: interquartile range. a Patients without previous hysterectomy. b Pearson’s Chi2 test with Yates’ continuity correction (Chi2 test). c Welch two Sample t-test (Student t-test)
1110 Table 3
M. Joubert et al. Complications and outcomes.
n Bladder injury n (%) Rectal injury n (%) Laparoconversion n (%) Wound infection n (%) Douglas pouch haematoma Bowel occlusion Pelvic abscess Reoperation for immediate complications (C1) Reoperation for urinary incontinence (C2) n (%) Reoperation for mesh exposure (C3) n (%) Reoperation for recurrent prolapse (C4) n (%) Global reoperation rate (C1 + C2 + C3 + C4) n (%) Post-operative POP stage (ICS POP-Q) n (%) Stage 0—1 Stage 2 Stage 3—4 Post-operative de novo functional disorders Constipation Straining to defecate Straining to void Dyspareunia
Laparoscopy
RASCLP
P
39 1/39 (2.5%) 0 2/39 (5.1%) 1 1 0 1 2/39 (5.1%)
17 1 (5.9%) 0 1 (5.9%) 0 0 0 0 0 (0%)
0.866a NS 0.596a NS NS NS NS 0.879a
2/39 (5.1%)
0 (0%)
0.879a
2/39 (5%)b
0 (0%)
0.879a
1/39 (2.5%)
1 (5.9%)
0.866a
7/39 (18%)
1 (5.9%)
0.44a
34/39 (88%) 4/39 (10%) 1/39 (2%)
16 (94.1%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%)
0.762a
3/39 1/39 2/39 0/39
0 0 1 0
0.596a 0.666a 0.596a NS
(7.6%) (2.5%) (5%) (0%)
(0%) (0%) (5.9%) (0%)
ICS: international continence society; n: number; POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification grading system. a Pearson’s Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction (Chi2 test). b All the patient have been reoperated by vaginal approach with partial resection of the mesh and vaginal suture. Patients followed with a POP-Q exam (3 loss of sight).
to the presence of excessive fat. In one case, a pre-sacral vessel injury occurred, and in the second case a left iliac vein injury occurred. As a consequence of difficulties experienced in achieving selective haemostasis of the vessel, the surgeon was forced to convert to laparotomy. The operative time was similar in both groups, with a mean value of 220 minutes (170—320) vs 190 minutes (160—237) for the RALSCP and LS groups, respectively (P = 0.253) (Table 3).
infected injury (n = 1), a Douglas pouch haematoma (n = 1) and a pelvic abscess (n = 1). In the RALSCP group, there were no post-operative complications (P = 0.6). The overall reoperation rate was similar in both groups: 18% (7/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.4. All of the post-operative complications are listed in Table 4, in accordance with the ICS/IUGA classification.
Outcomes and complications
Discussion
The median follow-up period was 14.9 months (IQR 8—25) in the LS group and 12 months (IQR: 7—15) in the RALSCP group (P = 0.42). The overall anatomic repair rates were 98% and 94.1% for the LS and RALSCP groups, respectively (P = 0.7). During the follow-up, a gynaecological examination revealed that prolapse of the posterior compartment had recurred in one patient in the RALSCP group after 12 months, and prolapse of the anterior compartment had recurred in one patient in the LS group. Both of these women underwent a subsequent procedure via the vaginal route. In the LS group, 3 (7.6%) post-operative complications occurred: an
The aim of this study was to establish a comparison between the LS and RALSCP procedures in obese women. It was observed that the overall anatomical success rate was 98% for the LS group, and 94.1% for the RALSCP group (P = 0.7). Furthermore, no significant difference in complication rate was observed between the two groups, for which similar operative times were required. In the past, abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) was considered to be the gold standard treatment for genital prolapse [13]. The functional outcome, operative characteristics and complications associated with this surgical procedure
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted Table 4
Operative complications using IUGA/ICS classification.
T1 complications T2 complications
T3 complications T4 complications a
1111
Laparoscopy
RASCLP
P
1 2 1 1 1 1 1
1 (7B/T1/S5)
0.747a
0
0.596a
0 1 (1B/T4/S2)
0.664a 0.866a
(4A/T1/S5) (7A/T1/S5) (7A/T2/S2) (1D/T2/S2) (6D/T2/S3) (2B/T3/S1) (2B/T4/S1)
Pearson’s Chi2 test with Yates’ continuity correction (Chi2 test).
have been evaluated for normal-weight and obese women. Bradley et al. [14] reported that perioperative and postoperative complications, as well as post-operative prolapse quantification were similar in obese and healthy-weight women. The differences between obese and non-obese women were related to the operative times only, these being significantly longer in the case of obese women (189 min as opposed to 169 min, P = 0.02) [14]. The laparoscopic approach was developed over the past decade, in response to the ideal requirement for POP repair to be as little invasive as possible, with good anatomical and preserve functions. Only one previous study has evaluated the feasibility of this approach in obese women [15]. In the latter study, similarly to the results of Bradley [14], perioperative and post-operative complications, as well as post-operative prolapse quantifications, were similar in obese and healthy-weight women. Contrary to Bradley’s findings [14], the operating times were similar in both populations, with 190 min in obese women versus 180 min in non-obese women, respectively (P = 0.12). The inexperienced laparoscopic surgeon found that this procedure had some limitations, such as a reduced freedom of movement, two-dimensional vision, and a longer operative time as a consequence of the need for significant training. All of these drawbacks demotivated a large number of surgeons, who preferred to avoid the laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted surgery was thus developed to simplify this technique, through the addition of three-dimensional vision and 7 degrees of freedom. This simplified the complex laparoscopic tasks such as suturing and knot-tying, needed in the treatment of genital prolapse. One recent study evaluated the functional outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women with a BMI above and below 30 kg/m2 [8]. The overall anatomic repair rates were 94.1% and 97.4% for the obese and non-obese groups, respectively (P = 0.95). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rates, with an overall reoperation rate (including surgery for de novo urinary-stress incontinence) of 5.9% in the obese group, versus 11.5% in the non-obese group (P = 0.8). The operating time was the same in both groups: 220 vs 200 min in the obese and non-obese groups, respectively (P = 0.232). One recent randomized trial comparing LS and RALSCP in 78 normal-weight women found that the costs of robotic sacrocolpopexy were higher than those of the conventional laparoscopic procedure, whereas the short-term outcomes
(except for pain at 1 week, which was higher in RALSCP than in LS) and complications were similar [16]. One previous randomized trial found that patients who underwent RALSCP had significantly greater pain during rest and activity, from the 3rd to the 5th week following surgery, and required a more prolonged use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [17]. Concerning the operating time (from incision to closure), both trials found that the total operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group. In addition, Anger et al. confirmed that the time spent in the operating room was greater in the case of robot-assisted surgery (202.8 minutes vs 178.4 minutes, P = .030) [16]. In a recent review of the literature made by Lee et al. [18], the overall mean operating time was 124 min (range: 55—185) for LS, and 202 min (range: 161—288) for RALSCP. Our study focused on obese people. Contrary to the case of normal-weight populations, we did not observe any significant differences in terms of operating time, even though the RALSCP does appear to be slightly longer, i.e. 220 minutes vs 190 minutes (P = 0.25). In addition, the rate of concomitant procedures was similar in both groups 26/39 vs 13/17 (P = 0.68). In the current study, independently of the surgical approach, we did not encounter a high rate of (peri- or postoperative) complications. The overall reintervention rate (including de novo SUI surgery) was similar in both groups: 18% (7/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.4. The current opinion is that obese patients are at a higher risk of morbidity. A small number of previous studies have shown that abdominal surgery for a gynaecologically benign condition (other than POP) is associated with a greater incidence of wound infection in obese women, than in non-obese women [19,20]. Only three previous retrospective studies have focused on the impact of BMI on the surgical outcomes of prolapse surgery. Chen et al. [21], who focused on vaginal surgery for prolapse or urinary incontinence, did not find any statistical difference in the proportion of subjects having at least 1 perioperative complication (20% in the obese group vs 15% in the non-obese group, P = NS). However, obese women were more likely to have an operative site infection (AOR = 5.5 [95% CI, 1.7—24.7; P = 0.01]) and morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 ) were more likely to have a bladder injury (AOR = 6.9 [95% CI, 1.7—24.0; P = 0.003]). Nam et al. [22] found that vaginal surgery for POP in obese women is associated with a lower morbidity rate than abdominal surgery, in terms of blood transfusions or urinary retention. Araco et al.
1112 [23], who studied the influence of body mass index on the risk of vaginal mesh exposure following mesh repair of pelvic prolapses, found that a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 conferred a 10.1 fold increase in the risk of developing erosion (22 months follow-up (range 12—48 months)). Clark et al. [24] found no correlation between BMI and POP recurrence rates following surgery for POP and/or urinary incontinence. These investigators followed 376 patients for a period of 5 years, during which only 36 patients (9.5%) underwent a total of 40 reoperations for surgical failure. Lo et al. [25] compared the surgical outcomes of anterior trans-obturator mesh and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for severe pelvic organ prolapse, as a function of the patient’s BMI, with a mean follow-up of 35 ± 18.9 months. There were no differences between normal-weight and obese women, with respect to perioperative complications and vaginal mesh exposure rate (4.1%). In the present study, the overall reoperation and vaginal erosion rates were similar in the normal-weight population. There is only one study (with a small sample size) that has focused on the impact of BMI on the functional outcome of genital prolapse surgery. The major limitation of all of these studies is their short follow-up period, ranging from 6 months to 2 years. Two years after abdominal sacrocolpopexy, Bradley et al. [14] found similar outcomes in obese and healthy-weight groups. Symptom resolution, measured according to the UDI, POPDI, and CRADI score changes, as well as satisfaction with surgery, did not differ between the groups. The POP-Q examination was the same in both groups, apart from the fact that a smaller maximum posterior vaginal descent (point Bp, cm) (—3.0 (—3.0 to —2.0)) was observed in the obese group than in the normal-weight groups (—2.0 (—3.0 to —1.0)) (P = 0.003). Mcdermott et al. [26] compared abdominal sacrocolpopexy and LS in obese women with a follow-up of 6 to 12 months. They found a similar overall satisfaction rate (86/100 in the ASC vs 81/100 in the LS, P = 0.8) and similar successful anatomical results (88/100 in the ASC vs 88/100 in the LS, P = 1). Following a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, Thubert et al. [15] found a similar rate of short-term satisfaction (6 months) in the obese and non-obese populations. The patients’ global rate of satisfaction with LS was 74.5% in the obese group and 67.9% in the non-obese group (P = 0.09). The short-term anatomical results assessed by POP-Q—ICS for post-operative functional disorders described by the obese and non-obese groups (de novo constipation, de novo anorectal dysfunction, voiding dysfunction, and de novo dyspareunia) were similar. Lo et al. [25] compared the outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery as a function of BMI, revealing an objective cure rate of 90.6% in obese patients, with a 35 ± 18.9 month follow-up. The only difference with respect to the normal-weight population was related to the POPDI-6 (P < 0.037) and the PISQ-12 (P < 0.005), with less improvement in the obese than in the non-obese group. One of the limitations of the current series is its retrospective design and the small size of the population. Nevertheless, this is the first study to have compared the laparoscopic and robot-assisted approaches for the treatment of genital prolapse in obese women. Another limitation of our study is the short-term follow-up of these patients. An extended follow-up period would be needed to confirm these findings over the longer term, even though obesity is
M. Joubert et al. not considered to be a factor affecting recurrence in genital prolapse. A randomized prospective study, made with a larger population, would be of considerable interest in comparing the performance achieved using the vaginal route with that of the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approaches, for the treatment of prolapse in obese women.
Conclusion RALSCP can be a viable alternative to laparoscopy for the treatment of prolapse in obese women. It is shown that an inexperienced laparoscopic surgeon can achieve the same anatomical results and the same rate of perioperative complications as an experienced RALSCP surgeon. Nevertheless, when performed by a trained urogynecological staff surgeon, experienced in the use of both RALSCP and LS, LS should be preferred for reasons of cost.
Disclosure of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article.
References [1] Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, Dieter AA, Myers ER, Sung VW. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205, 230e1—230e5. [2] Rozet F, Mandron E, Arroyo C, Andrews H, Cathelineau X, Mombet A, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy approach for genito-urinary prolapse: experience with 363 cases. Eur Urol 2005;47:230—6. [3] Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999—2008. JAMA 2010;303:235—41. [4] Van Vliet-Ostaptchouk JV, Nuotio M-L, Slagter SN, Doiron D, Fischer K, Foco L, et al. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and metabolically healthy obesity in Europe: a collaborative analysis of ten large cohort studies. BMC Endocr Disord 2014;14:9. [5] Daneshgari F, Kefer JC, Moore C, Kaouk J. Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int 2007;100:875—9. [6] Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK. Long-term results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 2006;176:655—9. [7] Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 2004;63:373—6. [8] Menzella D, Thubert T, Joubert M, Lauratet B, Kouchner P, Lefranc J-P. [Influence of body mass index on the outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic: A comparative retrospective study]. Prog Urol 2013;23:1482—8. [9] Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker M-O, Chartier-Kastler E, et al. Prospective comparison of shortterm functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol 2012;30:393—8.
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted [10] Baden WF, Walker TA. Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1972;15:1048—54. [11] Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, et al. An international urogynecological association (IUGA)/International continence society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22: 3—15. [12] Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M, et al. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 2012;61: 341—9. [13] Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 [CD004014]. [14] Bradley CS, Kenton KS, Richter HE, Gao X, Zyczynski HM, Weber AM, et al. Obesity and outcomes after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199, 690e1—690e8. [15] Thubert T, Naveau A, Letohic A, Villefranque V, Benifla JL, Deffieux X. Outcomes and feasibility of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy among obese versus non-obese women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013;120:49—52. [16] Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:5—12. [17] Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1005—13.
1113 [18] Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A Review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.064. [19] Myles TD, Gooch J, Santolaya J. Obesity as an independent risk factor for infectious morbidity in patients who undergo cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:959—64. [20] Dindo D, Muller MK, Weber M, Clavien P-A. Obesity in general elective surgery. Lancet 2003;361:2032—5. [21] Chen CCG, Collins SA, Rodgers AK, Paraiso MFR, Walters MD, Barber MD. Perioperative complications in obese women vs normal-weight women who undergo vaginal surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197. p. 98e1—98e8. [22] Nam K-H, Jeon M-J, Hur H-W, Kim S-K, Bai S-W. Perioperative and long-term complications among obese women undergoing vaginal surgery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2010;108:244—6. [23] Araco F, Gravante G, Sorge R, Overton J, De Vita D, Primicerio M, et al. The influence of BMI, smoking, and age on vaginal erosions after synthetic mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapses. A multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:772—80. [24] Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:1261—7. [25] Lo T-S, Tan YL, Khanuengkitkong S, Dass AK. Surgical outcomes of anterior trans-obturator mesh and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for severe pelvic organ prolapse in overweight and obese Asian women. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:809—16. [26] McDermott CD, Park J, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Surgical outcomes of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy related to body mass index. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012;34:47—56.
Disponible en ligne sur
ScienceDirect www.sciencedirect.com
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women Comparaison des résultats fonctionnels de la promontofixation cœlioscopique vs robot-assistée dans une population obèse M. Joubert b, T. Thubert a,∗,b, J.-P. Lefranc b, C. Vaessen c, É. Chartier-Kastler c, X. Deffieux a, M. Rouprêt c a
Service de gynécologie obstétrique et médecine de la reproduction, hôpital Antoine-Béclère, AP—HP, 157, rue de la Porte-de-Trivaux, 92140 Clamart, France b Service de chirurgie gynécologie, hôpital La Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP—HP, 83, boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France c Academic department of urology, université Paris 6, Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital, Assistance publique—Hôpitaux de Paris, 83, boulevard de l’Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France Received 12 July 2014; accepted 22 September 2014 Available online 16 October 2014
KEYWORDS Genital prolapse; Laparoscopy; Obesity; Robot-assisted surgery; Sacrocolpopexy
∗
Summary Objective. — To compare the functional outcomes and complication rates following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) with those occurring in robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP) in obese women. Patients and methods. — A comparative retrospective multicentre study was made, involving 39 obese women (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 ) who underwent LS, and 17 obese women who underwent RASCLP. The operative parameters (length of operation, associated procedures, complication rate and length of hospitalization) and the objective and subjective results were evaluated at 12 months follow-up. Results. — The median (IQR) BMI was 30.5 kg/m2 (30—32) in the LS group vs 31.6 kg/m2 (30—34) in the RALSCP group (P = 0.402). The anatomical results were comparable in both groups (LS vs
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T. Thubert).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2014.09.045 1166-7087/© 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted
1107
RALSCP): post-operative stage of prolapse (POP-Q-ICS): stage 0—1: 34/39 (88%) vs 16/17 (94.1%), P = 0.7; stage 2: 4/39 (10%) vs 0/17 (0%), P = 0.7; stage 3—4: 1/39 (2%) vs 1/17 (5.9%), P = 0.7. The complication rate was similar in both groups (LS vs RALSCP): bladder injury 2.5% (1/39) vs 0% (0/17), P = 0.6, laparoconversion 5.1% (2/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.5. The overall reoperation rate was (LS vs RALSCP): 18% (7/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.4. Conclusion. — Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy have equal results in obese women. The complication rates and outcomes appear to be similar in both groups of obese women. Level of evidence. — 3. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
MOTS CLÉS Prolapsus génital ; Cœlioscopie ; Obésité ; Chirurgie robot-assistée ; Promontofixation
Résumé But. — Le but de notre étude était de comparer la voie cœlioscopique et la chirurgie robotassistée dans une population obèse. Matériels. — Étude rétrospective comparative multicentrique comparant deux techniques de promontofixation : cœlioscopie (groupe 1, n = 39) vs chirurgie robot-assistée (RALSCP) (groupe 2, n = 17). Les caractéristiques des patientes, les paramètres opératoires, complications et les résultats anatomiques à court terme (12 mois) ont été évalués. Résultats. — L’IMC était de 30,5 kg/m2 (30—32) dans le groupe 1 vs 31,6 kg/m2 (30—34) dans le groupe 2 (p = 0,402). Les résultats anatomiques à court terme sont identiques dans les deux groupes : stade 0—1 : 34/39 (88 %) vs 16/17 (94,1 %) ; stade 2 : 4/39 (10 %) vs 0/17 (0 %) ; stade 3—4 : 1/39 (2 %) vs 1/17 (0 %), p = 0,762. Le taux de complication était similaire dans les deux groupes (cœlioscopie vs RALSCP) : plaie vésicale 2,5 % (1/39) vs 0 % (0/17), p = 0,6, laparoconversion 5,1 % (2/39) vs 5,9 % (1/17), p = 0,5. Le taux global de ré-intervention était de (cœlioscopie vs RALSCP) : 18 % (7/39) vs 5,9 % (1/17), p = 0,4. Conclusion. — Les résultats de la promontofixation cœlioscopique et robot-assistée semblent comparables chez les femmes obèses en termes de résultats anatomiques et de complications. Niveau de preuve. — 3. © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Introduction Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition. By the age of 80, a woman’s lifetime risk of undergoing a surgical procedure for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) or POP is estimated to be 11% [1]. A minimally invasive laparoscopic approach for the treatment of POP (sacrocolpopexy) has been developed in recent years, and has been shown to be comparable to conventional surgery in terms of functional outcome, whilst demonstrating all of the advantages of laparoscopy [2]. Obesity, which is defined by a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 , is endemic in industrialized countries. In 2008, the prevalence of obesity in the United States was estimated to exceed 30% in the adult population, and the combined age-adjusted prevalence of overweight and obesity among women was 64.1% (95% CI, 61.3%—66.9%) [3]. In 2010, an estimated 17% of adults were obese in the European Union [4]. POP surgery is required for some obese women, and sacrocolpopexy is considered to be one of the gold standards for the surgical treatment of POP. Since 2004, a robotassisted laparoscopic approach to sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP) has been proposed as a viable alternative to the purely laparoscopic technique [5—7]. RALSCP appears to be a practical option for obese women, having similar rates of complication and equivalent outcomes to those reported for
non-obese women [8]. One recent study compared the LS and RALSCP approaches in a normal-weight population [9]. However, there is currently no specific data comparing LS and RALSCP in obese women. The aim of our study was thus to compare the operative and functional outcomes of LS and RALSCP in women with a BMI greater than 30 kg/m2 .
Methods Population In this study, we retrospectively reviewed all of the prospective data collected from obese female patients who had undergone RALSCP or LS between January 2008 and January 2013, and who had attended any one of five tertiary care centres in France. The following parameters were extracted from their charts: age at the time of surgery, BMI, menopause status, initial stage of genital prolapse (according to the Baden and Walker classification) [10], past medical history, obstetric and surgical histories, past prolapse treatment(s), date of the sacrocolpopexy procedure, operative and perioperative data, complications, anatomical results, and functional results. Each patient underwent a pre-operative work-up, including urine analysis, a Pap smear, pelvic ultrasonography,
1108
M. Joubert et al.
and urodynamic exploration. Objective assessment of POP was carried out using a split speculum during a Valsalva manoeuver in the gynaecological position, following the POP ICS stage of POP [10]. Each surgeon performed a prolapse-reduction manoeuver using sponge-holding forceps in order to reveal the possible presence of masked urinary-stress incontinence. Operative and perioperative data included: concomitant surgical procedure (subtotal hysterectomy or mid-urethral sling); conversion to a laparotomy or a vaginal procedure; length of the operation; blood loss; type of anaesthesia (according to the WHO classification); occurrence of complications; analgesic requirements; and length of hospital stay. The Ethical Review Committee (CEROG) examined the present study and found that it complied with the generally accepted scientific principles and ethical standards of medical research, and was in agreement with the laws and regulations of the country in which the research experiment was carried out (submission number CEROG-GYN-2011-0801; CNGOF, Paris).
sutured with non-absorbable sutures along the full length of the posterior vaginal wall and into the levator ani muscles. The upper extremity of the anterior mesh was sutured with a non-absorbable suture to the anterior vertebral ligament at the level of the sacral promontory. Complete peritonization of the meshes was achieved by attaching the edges of the peritoneum using an absorbable suture. For both surgical procedures, the surgical time was defined as the duration of the procedure (excluding preparation and docking of the robot used for the RALSCP), plus the time required for insertion of the ports.
Surgical procedure
Follow-up
A laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy was performed by a senior surgeon on all patients, in accordance with the method statement provided hereafter. A pneumoperitoneum was created and four laparoscopic ports were placed: one 10 mm umbilical port, one 10 mm midline suprapubic port, and two 5 mm lateral ports. Following identification of the right ureter, the left iliac vein and the iliac-vessel junction, the peritoneum above the sacral promontory was incised medially to the right ureter and laterally to the sigmoid colon. Either a prosthetic macroporous monofilament polypropylene mesh, or a polyester mesh, were used in 2/39 (5.2%) and 37/39 (94.8%) patients, respectively. The bladder was dissected from the upper half of the anterior vaginal wall. A mesh was sutured to the anterior wall of the vagina using a non-absorbable suture. A posterior mesh was placed in 3/39 (7.6%) of patients, as a consequence of the presence of a posterior compartment vault (elythrocele, rectocele or enterocele). For the posterior mesh placement, a rectovaginal dissection was performed down to the level of the levator ani muscles, and a mesh was placed and sutured to the levator ani muscles using a non-absorbable suture, along the full length of the posterior vaginal wall. The upper extremity of the anterior mesh was sutured to the anterior vertebral ligament in front of the sacral promontory, using a non-absorbable suture. Complete peritonisation of the meshes was achieved by joining the edges of the peritoneum with an absorbable suture. Concerning the RALSCP, all procedures were carried out with a three-arm da Vinci® surgical system, using the transperitoneal four-port technique, as described previously [9]. Two surgeons performed RALSCP on all of the women. These surgeons had already completed their training and carried out sacrocolpopexy by LS or RALSCP with the same operative skill. Following identification of the right ureter, the left iliac vein, and the iliac-vessel junction, the peritoneum over the sacral promontory was incised medially to the right ureter and laterally to the sigmoid colon. For the placement of the posterior mesh, the rectovagina was dissected down to the level of the levator ani muscles, and a mesh was placed and
Post-operative follow-up visits were scheduled at 6 and 12 months, and then every year. During these visits, the POP was assessed using the POP ICS quantification. The surgery was considered to have been successful if the patient was symptomatically satisfied and the POP score was below stage 2 for all compartments.
Complications Concerning the reporting of morbidity and surgical complications, the authors followed the 10 criteria proposed by Martin et al. in 2002, as well as those established by the International Urogynecological Association/International continence society (IUGA/ICS), as stated in the European Guidelines [11,12].
Statistical analysis The data was statistically analysed using the R statistical software (Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, Paris, France). The descriptive statistics are given in the form of median values and IQRs (interquartile range). The Mann—Whitney U-test was used to compare continuous variables, and Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical variables. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Results Population Thirty-nine obese patients underwent a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (group 1), and 17 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (group 2). The median (IQR) BMI was 30.5 kg/m2 (30—32) in group 1 vs 31.6 kg/m2 (30—34) in group 2 (P = 0.4). The median age was 54 years (48—58) in group 1 vs 63 (56—69) in group 2 (P = 0.002). There was no statistical difference between the two groups for any of the other patient characteristics. These results are summarized in Table 1.
Surgery The surgical data are shown in Table 2. No significant difference was observed between the groups, with respect to the need for a concomitant procedure, such as a subtotal hysterectomy or a mid-urethral sling. The perioperative
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted Table 1
1109
Patient’s characteristics.
n BMI (kg/m2 ) median (IQR) [Extrem] Age (years) median (IQR) Parity (n) median (IQR) Post-menopausal status n (%) Pessary use n (%) Pelvic floor rehabilitation n (%) Tobacco use n (%) Previous C-section n (%) Previous hysterectomy n (%) Previous POP surgery n (%) POP stage (ICS POP-Q) Stage 0—1 Stage 2 Stage 3—4 Bp (ICS POP-Q) Stage 0—1 Stage 2 Stage 3—4 SUI patent n (%) SUI masked n (%)
Laparoscopy
RASCLP
P
39 30.48 (30—32) [30—42] 54 (48—58) 2 (2.0—3.5) 21/39 (54%) 1/37 (2.7%) 5/37 (13.5%) 6/39 (15%) 4/39 (10%) 2/39 (5%) 9/39 (23%) 0/39 (0%) 3/39 (8%) 36/39 (92%)
17 31.6 (30—34) [30—36] 63 (56—69) 3 (1—3) 15/17 (83.3%) 1/17 (5.6%) 1/17 (5.6%) 1/17 (5.6%) 3/17 (16.7%) 4/17 (22.2%) 2/17 (11.2%) 0/17 (0%) 2/17 (11.2%) 15/17 (88.8%)
14/39 (36%) 15/39 (38%) 10/39 (26%)
5/17 (29.4%) 6/17 (35.3%) 6/17 (29.4%)
0.870b 0.940b 0.679b
5/39 (13%) 13/34c (38%)
2/17 (11.2%) 10/15c (66.7%)
0.741b 0.894b
0.402a 0.002a 0.220a 0.030b 0.804b 0.716b 0.582b 0.741b 0.114b 0.539b 0.985b
BMI: body mass index; ICS: international continence society; IQR: interquartile range; POP: pelvic organ prolapse; POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification grading system; SUI: stress urinary incontinence. a Welch two sample t-test (Student t-test). b Pearson’s Chi2 test with Yates’ continuity correction (Chi2 test). c Patients without patent stress incontinence.
complication rate was similar in both groups. In particular, for the LS group and RALSCP groups respectively: bladder injury 2.5% (1/39) vs 0% (0/17), P = 0.6; and laparoconversion for perioperative complications 5.1% (2/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.6. Conversion to abdominal laparotomy was
Table 2
required for one patient (5.9%) in group 2, as a consequence of pneumoperitoneum intolerance. In the LS group, a conversion to abdominal laparotomy was required for 2 patients (5.1%), as a result of vessel injuries. Both of these cases resulted from difficult access to the promontory, due
Operative data.
n Concomitant subtotal hysterectomy n (%) Concomitant mid-urethral sling n (%) Mesh location n (%) Anterior mesh only Posterior mesh only Both anterior and posterior meshes Operative duration (min) Median (IQR) Hospital length of stay (days) median (IQR)
Laparoscopy
RASCLP
P
39 13/37a (35%)
17 2/13a (15.4%)
0.324b
13/39 (33%)
11/17 (64.7%)
0.059b < 0.005b
3/39 (8%) 2/39 (5%) 34/39 (87%)
0/17 (0%) 0/17 (0%) 17/17 (0%)
190 (160—237)
220 (170—320)
0.253c
4 (3.0—4.0)
4 (4—5)
0.989c
n: number; IQR: interquartile range. a Patients without previous hysterectomy. b Pearson’s Chi2 test with Yates’ continuity correction (Chi2 test). c Welch two Sample t-test (Student t-test)
1110 Table 3
M. Joubert et al. Complications and outcomes.
n Bladder injury n (%) Rectal injury n (%) Laparoconversion n (%) Wound infection n (%) Douglas pouch haematoma Bowel occlusion Pelvic abscess Reoperation for immediate complications (C1) Reoperation for urinary incontinence (C2) n (%) Reoperation for mesh exposure (C3) n (%) Reoperation for recurrent prolapse (C4) n (%) Global reoperation rate (C1 + C2 + C3 + C4) n (%) Post-operative POP stage (ICS POP-Q) n (%) Stage 0—1 Stage 2 Stage 3—4 Post-operative de novo functional disorders Constipation Straining to defecate Straining to void Dyspareunia
Laparoscopy
RASCLP
P
39 1/39 (2.5%) 0 2/39 (5.1%) 1 1 0 1 2/39 (5.1%)
17 1 (5.9%) 0 1 (5.9%) 0 0 0 0 0 (0%)
0.866a NS 0.596a NS NS NS NS 0.879a
2/39 (5.1%)
0 (0%)
0.879a
2/39 (5%)b
0 (0%)
0.879a
1/39 (2.5%)
1 (5.9%)
0.866a
7/39 (18%)
1 (5.9%)
0.44a
34/39 (88%) 4/39 (10%) 1/39 (2%)
16 (94.1%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%)
0.762a
3/39 1/39 2/39 0/39
0 0 1 0
0.596a 0.666a 0.596a NS
(7.6%) (2.5%) (5%) (0%)
(0%) (0%) (5.9%) (0%)
ICS: international continence society; n: number; POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification grading system. a Pearson’s Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction (Chi2 test). b All the patient have been reoperated by vaginal approach with partial resection of the mesh and vaginal suture. Patients followed with a POP-Q exam (3 loss of sight).
to the presence of excessive fat. In one case, a pre-sacral vessel injury occurred, and in the second case a left iliac vein injury occurred. As a consequence of difficulties experienced in achieving selective haemostasis of the vessel, the surgeon was forced to convert to laparotomy. The operative time was similar in both groups, with a mean value of 220 minutes (170—320) vs 190 minutes (160—237) for the RALSCP and LS groups, respectively (P = 0.253) (Table 3).
infected injury (n = 1), a Douglas pouch haematoma (n = 1) and a pelvic abscess (n = 1). In the RALSCP group, there were no post-operative complications (P = 0.6). The overall reoperation rate was similar in both groups: 18% (7/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.4. All of the post-operative complications are listed in Table 4, in accordance with the ICS/IUGA classification.
Outcomes and complications
Discussion
The median follow-up period was 14.9 months (IQR 8—25) in the LS group and 12 months (IQR: 7—15) in the RALSCP group (P = 0.42). The overall anatomic repair rates were 98% and 94.1% for the LS and RALSCP groups, respectively (P = 0.7). During the follow-up, a gynaecological examination revealed that prolapse of the posterior compartment had recurred in one patient in the RALSCP group after 12 months, and prolapse of the anterior compartment had recurred in one patient in the LS group. Both of these women underwent a subsequent procedure via the vaginal route. In the LS group, 3 (7.6%) post-operative complications occurred: an
The aim of this study was to establish a comparison between the LS and RALSCP procedures in obese women. It was observed that the overall anatomical success rate was 98% for the LS group, and 94.1% for the RALSCP group (P = 0.7). Furthermore, no significant difference in complication rate was observed between the two groups, for which similar operative times were required. In the past, abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) was considered to be the gold standard treatment for genital prolapse [13]. The functional outcome, operative characteristics and complications associated with this surgical procedure
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted Table 4
Operative complications using IUGA/ICS classification.
T1 complications T2 complications
T3 complications T4 complications a
1111
Laparoscopy
RASCLP
P
1 2 1 1 1 1 1
1 (7B/T1/S5)
0.747a
0
0.596a
0 1 (1B/T4/S2)
0.664a 0.866a
(4A/T1/S5) (7A/T1/S5) (7A/T2/S2) (1D/T2/S2) (6D/T2/S3) (2B/T3/S1) (2B/T4/S1)
Pearson’s Chi2 test with Yates’ continuity correction (Chi2 test).
have been evaluated for normal-weight and obese women. Bradley et al. [14] reported that perioperative and postoperative complications, as well as post-operative prolapse quantification were similar in obese and healthy-weight women. The differences between obese and non-obese women were related to the operative times only, these being significantly longer in the case of obese women (189 min as opposed to 169 min, P = 0.02) [14]. The laparoscopic approach was developed over the past decade, in response to the ideal requirement for POP repair to be as little invasive as possible, with good anatomical and preserve functions. Only one previous study has evaluated the feasibility of this approach in obese women [15]. In the latter study, similarly to the results of Bradley [14], perioperative and post-operative complications, as well as post-operative prolapse quantifications, were similar in obese and healthy-weight women. Contrary to Bradley’s findings [14], the operating times were similar in both populations, with 190 min in obese women versus 180 min in non-obese women, respectively (P = 0.12). The inexperienced laparoscopic surgeon found that this procedure had some limitations, such as a reduced freedom of movement, two-dimensional vision, and a longer operative time as a consequence of the need for significant training. All of these drawbacks demotivated a large number of surgeons, who preferred to avoid the laparoscopic approach. Robotic-assisted surgery was thus developed to simplify this technique, through the addition of three-dimensional vision and 7 degrees of freedom. This simplified the complex laparoscopic tasks such as suturing and knot-tying, needed in the treatment of genital prolapse. One recent study evaluated the functional outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women with a BMI above and below 30 kg/m2 [8]. The overall anatomic repair rates were 94.1% and 97.4% for the obese and non-obese groups, respectively (P = 0.95). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of complication rates, with an overall reoperation rate (including surgery for de novo urinary-stress incontinence) of 5.9% in the obese group, versus 11.5% in the non-obese group (P = 0.8). The operating time was the same in both groups: 220 vs 200 min in the obese and non-obese groups, respectively (P = 0.232). One recent randomized trial comparing LS and RALSCP in 78 normal-weight women found that the costs of robotic sacrocolpopexy were higher than those of the conventional laparoscopic procedure, whereas the short-term outcomes
(except for pain at 1 week, which was higher in RALSCP than in LS) and complications were similar [16]. One previous randomized trial found that patients who underwent RALSCP had significantly greater pain during rest and activity, from the 3rd to the 5th week following surgery, and required a more prolonged use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [17]. Concerning the operating time (from incision to closure), both trials found that the total operative time was significantly longer in the robotic group than in the laparoscopic group. In addition, Anger et al. confirmed that the time spent in the operating room was greater in the case of robot-assisted surgery (202.8 minutes vs 178.4 minutes, P = .030) [16]. In a recent review of the literature made by Lee et al. [18], the overall mean operating time was 124 min (range: 55—185) for LS, and 202 min (range: 161—288) for RALSCP. Our study focused on obese people. Contrary to the case of normal-weight populations, we did not observe any significant differences in terms of operating time, even though the RALSCP does appear to be slightly longer, i.e. 220 minutes vs 190 minutes (P = 0.25). In addition, the rate of concomitant procedures was similar in both groups 26/39 vs 13/17 (P = 0.68). In the current study, independently of the surgical approach, we did not encounter a high rate of (peri- or postoperative) complications. The overall reintervention rate (including de novo SUI surgery) was similar in both groups: 18% (7/39) vs 5.9% (1/17), P = 0.4. The current opinion is that obese patients are at a higher risk of morbidity. A small number of previous studies have shown that abdominal surgery for a gynaecologically benign condition (other than POP) is associated with a greater incidence of wound infection in obese women, than in non-obese women [19,20]. Only three previous retrospective studies have focused on the impact of BMI on the surgical outcomes of prolapse surgery. Chen et al. [21], who focused on vaginal surgery for prolapse or urinary incontinence, did not find any statistical difference in the proportion of subjects having at least 1 perioperative complication (20% in the obese group vs 15% in the non-obese group, P = NS). However, obese women were more likely to have an operative site infection (AOR = 5.5 [95% CI, 1.7—24.7; P = 0.01]) and morbidly obese patients (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 ) were more likely to have a bladder injury (AOR = 6.9 [95% CI, 1.7—24.0; P = 0.003]). Nam et al. [22] found that vaginal surgery for POP in obese women is associated with a lower morbidity rate than abdominal surgery, in terms of blood transfusions or urinary retention. Araco et al.
1112 [23], who studied the influence of body mass index on the risk of vaginal mesh exposure following mesh repair of pelvic prolapses, found that a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 conferred a 10.1 fold increase in the risk of developing erosion (22 months follow-up (range 12—48 months)). Clark et al. [24] found no correlation between BMI and POP recurrence rates following surgery for POP and/or urinary incontinence. These investigators followed 376 patients for a period of 5 years, during which only 36 patients (9.5%) underwent a total of 40 reoperations for surgical failure. Lo et al. [25] compared the surgical outcomes of anterior trans-obturator mesh and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for severe pelvic organ prolapse, as a function of the patient’s BMI, with a mean follow-up of 35 ± 18.9 months. There were no differences between normal-weight and obese women, with respect to perioperative complications and vaginal mesh exposure rate (4.1%). In the present study, the overall reoperation and vaginal erosion rates were similar in the normal-weight population. There is only one study (with a small sample size) that has focused on the impact of BMI on the functional outcome of genital prolapse surgery. The major limitation of all of these studies is their short follow-up period, ranging from 6 months to 2 years. Two years after abdominal sacrocolpopexy, Bradley et al. [14] found similar outcomes in obese and healthy-weight groups. Symptom resolution, measured according to the UDI, POPDI, and CRADI score changes, as well as satisfaction with surgery, did not differ between the groups. The POP-Q examination was the same in both groups, apart from the fact that a smaller maximum posterior vaginal descent (point Bp, cm) (—3.0 (—3.0 to —2.0)) was observed in the obese group than in the normal-weight groups (—2.0 (—3.0 to —1.0)) (P = 0.003). Mcdermott et al. [26] compared abdominal sacrocolpopexy and LS in obese women with a follow-up of 6 to 12 months. They found a similar overall satisfaction rate (86/100 in the ASC vs 81/100 in the LS, P = 0.8) and similar successful anatomical results (88/100 in the ASC vs 88/100 in the LS, P = 1). Following a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, Thubert et al. [15] found a similar rate of short-term satisfaction (6 months) in the obese and non-obese populations. The patients’ global rate of satisfaction with LS was 74.5% in the obese group and 67.9% in the non-obese group (P = 0.09). The short-term anatomical results assessed by POP-Q—ICS for post-operative functional disorders described by the obese and non-obese groups (de novo constipation, de novo anorectal dysfunction, voiding dysfunction, and de novo dyspareunia) were similar. Lo et al. [25] compared the outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery as a function of BMI, revealing an objective cure rate of 90.6% in obese patients, with a 35 ± 18.9 month follow-up. The only difference with respect to the normal-weight population was related to the POPDI-6 (P < 0.037) and the PISQ-12 (P < 0.005), with less improvement in the obese than in the non-obese group. One of the limitations of the current series is its retrospective design and the small size of the population. Nevertheless, this is the first study to have compared the laparoscopic and robot-assisted approaches for the treatment of genital prolapse in obese women. Another limitation of our study is the short-term follow-up of these patients. An extended follow-up period would be needed to confirm these findings over the longer term, even though obesity is
M. Joubert et al. not considered to be a factor affecting recurrence in genital prolapse. A randomized prospective study, made with a larger population, would be of considerable interest in comparing the performance achieved using the vaginal route with that of the robot-assisted and laparoscopic approaches, for the treatment of prolapse in obese women.
Conclusion RALSCP can be a viable alternative to laparoscopy for the treatment of prolapse in obese women. It is shown that an inexperienced laparoscopic surgeon can achieve the same anatomical results and the same rate of perioperative complications as an experienced RALSCP surgeon. Nevertheless, when performed by a trained urogynecological staff surgeon, experienced in the use of both RALSCP and LS, LS should be preferred for reasons of cost.
Disclosure of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article.
References [1] Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, Dieter AA, Myers ER, Sung VW. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205, 230e1—230e5. [2] Rozet F, Mandron E, Arroyo C, Andrews H, Cathelineau X, Mombet A, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy approach for genito-urinary prolapse: experience with 363 cases. Eur Urol 2005;47:230—6. [3] Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999—2008. JAMA 2010;303:235—41. [4] Van Vliet-Ostaptchouk JV, Nuotio M-L, Slagter SN, Doiron D, Fischer K, Foco L, et al. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and metabolically healthy obesity in Europe: a collaborative analysis of ten large cohort studies. BMC Endocr Disord 2014;14:9. [5] Daneshgari F, Kefer JC, Moore C, Kaouk J. Robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy/sacrouteropexy repair of advanced female pelvic organ prolaspe (POP): utilizing POP-quantification-based staging and outcomes. BJU Int 2007;100:875—9. [6] Elliott DS, Krambeck AE, Chow GK. Long-term results of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of high grade vaginal vault prolapse. J Urol 2006;176:655—9. [7] Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology 2004;63:373—6. [8] Menzella D, Thubert T, Joubert M, Lauratet B, Kouchner P, Lefranc J-P. [Influence of body mass index on the outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic: A comparative retrospective study]. Prog Urol 2013;23:1482—8. [9] Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker M-O, Chartier-Kastler E, et al. Prospective comparison of shortterm functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol 2012;30:393—8.
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted [10] Baden WF, Walker TA. Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1972;15:1048—54. [11] Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, et al. An international urogynecological association (IUGA)/International continence society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22: 3—15. [12] Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M, Remzi M, Rouprêt M, Truss M, et al. Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 2012;61: 341—9. [13] Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 [CD004014]. [14] Bradley CS, Kenton KS, Richter HE, Gao X, Zyczynski HM, Weber AM, et al. Obesity and outcomes after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199, 690e1—690e8. [15] Thubert T, Naveau A, Letohic A, Villefranque V, Benifla JL, Deffieux X. Outcomes and feasibility of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy among obese versus non-obese women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013;120:49—52. [16] Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:5—12. [17] Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1005—13.
1113 [18] Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A Review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.064. [19] Myles TD, Gooch J, Santolaya J. Obesity as an independent risk factor for infectious morbidity in patients who undergo cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:959—64. [20] Dindo D, Muller MK, Weber M, Clavien P-A. Obesity in general elective surgery. Lancet 2003;361:2032—5. [21] Chen CCG, Collins SA, Rodgers AK, Paraiso MFR, Walters MD, Barber MD. Perioperative complications in obese women vs normal-weight women who undergo vaginal surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197. p. 98e1—98e8. [22] Nam K-H, Jeon M-J, Hur H-W, Kim S-K, Bai S-W. Perioperative and long-term complications among obese women undergoing vaginal surgery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2010;108:244—6. [23] Araco F, Gravante G, Sorge R, Overton J, De Vita D, Primicerio M, et al. The influence of BMI, smoking, and age on vaginal erosions after synthetic mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapses. A multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:772—80. [24] Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:1261—7. [25] Lo T-S, Tan YL, Khanuengkitkong S, Dass AK. Surgical outcomes of anterior trans-obturator mesh and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for severe pelvic organ prolapse in overweight and obese Asian women. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:809—16. [26] McDermott CD, Park J, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Surgical outcomes of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy related to body mass index. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2012;34:47—56.
