Robot‐assisted surgery for the management of apical prolapse: a bi‐centre prospective cohort study

Robot‐assisted surgery is a recognised treatment for pelvic‐organ prolapse. Many of the surgical subgroup outcomes for apical prolapse are reported together, leading to a paucity of homogenous data.

[1]  B. O’reilly,et al.  How do patients and surgeons decide on uterine preservation or hysterectomy in apical prolapse? , 2018, International Urogynecology Journal.

[2]  M. Schempershofe,et al.  In-Bag Morcellation as a Routine for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy , 2017, BioMed research international.

[3]  V. Wong,et al.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: how low does the mesh go? , 2017, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[4]  Julie Brown,et al.  Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  H. Goldman,et al.  Robotic Female Pelvic Floor Reconstruction: A Review. , 2016, Urology.

[6]  W. Gregory,et al.  Preoperative Prolapse Stage as Predictor of Failure of Sacrocolpopexy , 2016, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[7]  B. O’reilly,et al.  Sacrocolpopexy: is there a consistent surgical technique? , 2016, International Urogynecology Journal.

[8]  J. Feinglass,et al.  Anatomic Outcomes of Robotic Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy and Concurrent Sacrocolpopexy at a Tertiary Care Institution at Initial Adaptation of the Procedure , 2016, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[9]  P. Clavien,et al.  Definition and Classification of Intraoperative Complications (CLASSIC): Delphi Study and Pilot Evaluation , 2015, World Journal of Surgery.

[10]  S. Brancato,et al.  Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. , 2015, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[11]  F. Ghezzi,et al.  Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. , 2014, European urology.

[12]  I. Korfage,et al.  Validation of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) in a Dutch population , 2014, International Urogynecology Journal.

[13]  Linda Brubaker,et al.  Robotic Compared With Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2014, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[14]  P. Culligan,et al.  Subjective and objective results 1 year after robotic sacrocolpopexy using a lightweight Y-mesh , 2013, International Urogynecology Journal.

[15]  K. Kluivers,et al.  Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a historical review with emphasis on the anterior compartment , 2013, International Urogynecology Journal.

[16]  J. Jelovsek,et al.  Laparoscopic Compared With Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  O. Sorinola,et al.  Multicenter inter-examiner agreement trial for the validation of simplified POPQ system , 2011, International Urogynecology Journal.

[18]  P. Tulikangas,et al.  Randomized trials in robotic surgery: a practical impossibility? , 2010, International Urogynecology Journal.

[19]  C. Spino,et al.  Defining Success After Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  P. Magtibay,et al.  Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve , 2009, Surgical Endoscopy.

[21]  Usha Seshadri-Kreaden,et al.  What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? , 2008, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[22]  R. Freeman,et al.  Validation of a simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ prolapse classification system , 2006, International Urogynecology Journal.

[23]  G. Cundiff,et al.  Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive Review , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[24]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.