User login
BOSTON – Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy offers some distinct advantages over the abdominal route for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, including reduced intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stays, according to findings from a new research review.
“We wanted to compare the efficiency and safety of abdominal sacral colpopexy and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ collapse,” Juan Liu, MD, of Guangzhou Medical University in China said at the annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Week, held by the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.
Analyses directly comparing the safety and effectiveness of the two surgical routes are low in number, Dr. Liu added.
The researchers looked at published articles, written in English or Chinese, that were either retrospective analyses or randomized controlled trial studies examining laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), with follow-up times of at least 30 days.
Studies that investigated robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy were excluded, as well as studies for which there were no specific feature data or for which the full text of the study was inaccessible. Of 1,807 articles identified, 10 studies containing 3,816 cases were included for the analysis.
The studies were used to compare laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy on the following criteria: operating time; blood loss; hospital length of stay; intraoperative complications such as urinary, bladder, and rectal injury; and postoperative complications such as infection, intestinal obstruction, mesh exposure, new urinary incontinence, and dyspareunia. Weighted mean difference was calculated to account for the different sample sizes across the studies.
The weighted mean difference in intraoperative blood loss in the laparoscopic cohort, compared with the abdominal cohort, was –100.68 mL (P less than .01). Hospital length of stay was also significantly reduced in the laparoscopic cohort, with a weighted mean difference of –1.77 days (P less than .01). The odds ratio for gastrointestinal complications was 0.30 for the laparoscopic route, compared with the abdominal route (P less than .01).
Additionally, pulmonary complications and blood transfusions were also found to be reduced with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy, with an odds ratio of 0.59 (P = .02) and 0.47 (P = .03), respectively.
But the review found little difference in other areas. The weighted mean difference for operating time in the laparoscopic cohort was 0.06 minutes, compared with the abdominal cohort, which was not statistically significant (P= .84). And there was not a statistically significant difference between the two surgical approaches in urinary complications (OR, 0.41; P = .11), cardiovascular complications (OR, 0.31; P = .49), or mesh exposure (OR, 1.60, P = .18).
No funding source for this study was disclosed. Dr. Liu reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
BOSTON – Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy offers some distinct advantages over the abdominal route for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, including reduced intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stays, according to findings from a new research review.
“We wanted to compare the efficiency and safety of abdominal sacral colpopexy and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ collapse,” Juan Liu, MD, of Guangzhou Medical University in China said at the annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Week, held by the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.
Analyses directly comparing the safety and effectiveness of the two surgical routes are low in number, Dr. Liu added.
The researchers looked at published articles, written in English or Chinese, that were either retrospective analyses or randomized controlled trial studies examining laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), with follow-up times of at least 30 days.
Studies that investigated robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy were excluded, as well as studies for which there were no specific feature data or for which the full text of the study was inaccessible. Of 1,807 articles identified, 10 studies containing 3,816 cases were included for the analysis.
The studies were used to compare laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy on the following criteria: operating time; blood loss; hospital length of stay; intraoperative complications such as urinary, bladder, and rectal injury; and postoperative complications such as infection, intestinal obstruction, mesh exposure, new urinary incontinence, and dyspareunia. Weighted mean difference was calculated to account for the different sample sizes across the studies.
The weighted mean difference in intraoperative blood loss in the laparoscopic cohort, compared with the abdominal cohort, was –100.68 mL (P less than .01). Hospital length of stay was also significantly reduced in the laparoscopic cohort, with a weighted mean difference of –1.77 days (P less than .01). The odds ratio for gastrointestinal complications was 0.30 for the laparoscopic route, compared with the abdominal route (P less than .01).
Additionally, pulmonary complications and blood transfusions were also found to be reduced with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy, with an odds ratio of 0.59 (P = .02) and 0.47 (P = .03), respectively.
But the review found little difference in other areas. The weighted mean difference for operating time in the laparoscopic cohort was 0.06 minutes, compared with the abdominal cohort, which was not statistically significant (P= .84). And there was not a statistically significant difference between the two surgical approaches in urinary complications (OR, 0.41; P = .11), cardiovascular complications (OR, 0.31; P = .49), or mesh exposure (OR, 1.60, P = .18).
No funding source for this study was disclosed. Dr. Liu reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
BOSTON – Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy offers some distinct advantages over the abdominal route for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, including reduced intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stays, according to findings from a new research review.
“We wanted to compare the efficiency and safety of abdominal sacral colpopexy and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ collapse,” Juan Liu, MD, of Guangzhou Medical University in China said at the annual Minimally Invasive Surgery Week, held by the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons.
Analyses directly comparing the safety and effectiveness of the two surgical routes are low in number, Dr. Liu added.
The researchers looked at published articles, written in English or Chinese, that were either retrospective analyses or randomized controlled trial studies examining laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), with follow-up times of at least 30 days.
Studies that investigated robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy were excluded, as well as studies for which there were no specific feature data or for which the full text of the study was inaccessible. Of 1,807 articles identified, 10 studies containing 3,816 cases were included for the analysis.
The studies were used to compare laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy on the following criteria: operating time; blood loss; hospital length of stay; intraoperative complications such as urinary, bladder, and rectal injury; and postoperative complications such as infection, intestinal obstruction, mesh exposure, new urinary incontinence, and dyspareunia. Weighted mean difference was calculated to account for the different sample sizes across the studies.
The weighted mean difference in intraoperative blood loss in the laparoscopic cohort, compared with the abdominal cohort, was –100.68 mL (P less than .01). Hospital length of stay was also significantly reduced in the laparoscopic cohort, with a weighted mean difference of –1.77 days (P less than .01). The odds ratio for gastrointestinal complications was 0.30 for the laparoscopic route, compared with the abdominal route (P less than .01).
Additionally, pulmonary complications and blood transfusions were also found to be reduced with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy, with an odds ratio of 0.59 (P = .02) and 0.47 (P = .03), respectively.
But the review found little difference in other areas. The weighted mean difference for operating time in the laparoscopic cohort was 0.06 minutes, compared with the abdominal cohort, which was not statistically significant (P= .84). And there was not a statistically significant difference between the two surgical approaches in urinary complications (OR, 0.41; P = .11), cardiovascular complications (OR, 0.31; P = .49), or mesh exposure (OR, 1.60, P = .18).
No funding source for this study was disclosed. Dr. Liu reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
AT MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGERY WEEK
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The weighted mean difference in intraoperative blood loss in the laparoscopic cohort, compared with the abdominal cohort, was –100.68 mL (P less than .01).
Data source: Retrospective review of 10 studies involving 3,816 sacrocolpopexy cases.
Disclosures: Dr. Liu reported having no relevant financial disclosures.