1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al An
2. International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence
3. Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction.
4. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4–20.
5. Deprest JA, Cartwright R, Dietz HP, Brito LGO, Koch M, Allen-Brady K, et al.
6. International Urogynecological Consultation (IUC): pathophysiology of pelvic
7. organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(7):1699–1710. https://doi.org/
8. 1007/s00192-022-05081-0.
9. Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence:
10. systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):13–21.
11. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00192-017-3475-4.
12. Brito LGO, Pereira GMV, Moalli P, Shynlova O, Manonai J, Weintraub AY, et
13. al. Age and/or postmenopausal status as risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse
14. development: systematic review with meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J.
15. ;33(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04953-1.
16. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of
17. surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet
18. Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501.
19. Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1815–33.
20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1.
21. Lim PC, Crane JT, English EJ, Farnam RW, Garza DM, Winter ML, Rozeboom
22. JL. Multicenter analysis comparing robotic, open, laparoscopic, and vaginal
23. hysterectomies performed by high-volume surgeons for benign indications. Int J
24. Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;133(3):359–64.
25. Mozon AO, Kim JH, Lee SR. Robotic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol Sci.
26. ;67(2):212–7. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.23226.
27. Pushkar DY, Kasyan GR, Popov AA. Robotic sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ
28. prolapse: a review of current literature. Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(6):531–6.
29. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000932.
30. Noor N, Bastawros D, Florian-Rodriguez ME, Hobson D, Eto C, Lozo S, et al.
31. Comparing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with vaginal uterosacral ligament
32. suspension: a multicenter retrospective cohort study through the Fellows' Pelvic
33. Research Network. Urogynecology (Phila). 2022;28(10):687–94. https://doi.org/
34. 1097/ SPV.0000000000001226.
35. Chill HH, Hadizadeh A, Paya-Ten C, Leffelman A, Chang C, Moss NP,
36. Goldberg RP. Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare
37. encounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assisted
38. sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study. BMC Womens Health.
39. ;24(1): 173. https://doi.org/10. 1186/s12905-024-03011-4.
40. Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, Luber KM, Lukacz ES, Brown HW, et al.
41. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive
42. sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):649–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/
43. s00192-014-2566-8.
44. Rustia GM, Baracy MG Jr, Khair E, Hagglund KH, Aslam MF. Pain with
45. differing insufflation pressures during robotic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized
46. controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;142(1):151–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/
47. AOG.0000000000005231.
48. Ferrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparing
49. Restorelle Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted
50. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(2):83–
51. https://doi. org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000655.
52. Ferrando CA, Paraiso MFR. A prospective randomized trial comparing
53. Restorelle® Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted
54. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: 24-month outcomes. Int Urogynecol J.
55. ;32(6):1565–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04657-y.
56. Giugale LE, Hansbarger MM, Askew AL, Visco AG, Shepherd JP, Bradley
57. MS. Assessing pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive
58. sacrocolpopexy: does mesh weight matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(8):2195–
59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04681-6.
60. Matanes E, Boulus S, Lauterbach R, Amit A, Weiner Z, Lowenstein L.
61. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port
62. sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
63. ;222(4):358.e1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048.
64. Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Robot-
65. assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol.
66. ;187(2):638–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.160.
67. Dubinskaya A, Hernandez-Aranda D, Wakefield DB, Shepherd JP. Comparing
68. laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus
69. concomitant hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(2):401–7. https://doi.org/10.
70. /s00192-019-04017-5.
71. Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, McDonald MA, Shveiky D, Park AJ, Gutman RE,
72. Sokol AI. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral
73. colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(3):158–61. https://doi.
74. org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824b218d.
75. Awad N, Mustafa S, Amit A, Deutsch M, Eldor-Itskovitz J, Lowenstein L.
76. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy.
77. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(6):1181–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-
78. -x.
79. Cucinella G, Calagna G, Romano G, Di Buono G, Gugliotta G, Saitta S, et al.
80. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case-control
81. study. G Chir. 2016;37(3):113–7. https://doi.org/10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.113.
82. Evangelopoulos N, Nessi A, Achtari C. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy:
83. efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy. J Robot Surg.
84. ;18(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01799-1.
85. Joubert M, Thubert T, Lefranc JP, Vaessen C, Chartier-Kastler É, Deffieux X,
86. Rouprêt M. Comparison of functional outcomes with purely laparoscopic
87. sacrocolpopexy and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in obese women. Prog Urol.
88. ;24(17):1106–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2014.09.045.
89. Lallemant M, Tresch C, Puyraveau M, Delplanque S, Cosson M, Ramanah R.
90. Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
91. with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg.
92. ;15(5):785–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01177-1.
93. Pulliam SJ, Weinstein MM, Wakamatsu MM. Minimally invasive apical
94. sacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating room
95. experiences. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(2):122–6. https://doi.
96. org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824a3995.
97. Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, Vaessen C, Bitker MO, Chartier-Kastler E,
98. Rouprêt M. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained
99. after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J
100. Urol. 2012;30(3):393–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0748-2.
101. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assisted
102. and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes.
103. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):44–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/
104. SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf.
105. Tarr ME, Brancato SJ, Cunkelman JA, Polcari A, Nutter B, Kenton K.
106. Comparison of postural ergonomics between laparoscopic and robotic
107. sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(2):234–8.
108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.10.004.
109. Chan SS, Pang SM, Cheung TH, Cheung RY, Chung TK. Laparoscopic
110. sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: with or without robotic
111. assistance. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(1):54–60.
112. Shigemi D, Okada A, Yasunaga H. Postoperative adverse events and re-
113. treatment among patients who have undergone laparoscopic and robotic
114. sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse in Japan. Int J Gynaecol Obstet.
115. ;161(1):114–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14497.
116. Yin H, Zeng F, Xue M, Tian X. Therapeutic effect of robotassisted
117. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Zhong Nan
118. Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020;45(6):709–14.
119. Unger CA, Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Ridgeway B. Perioperative
120. adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet
121. Gynecol. 2014;211(5):547.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054.
122. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic
123. sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol.
124. ;112(6):1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394.
125. Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy:
126. -month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79(3):532–6. https://doi.org/10.
127. /j.urology.2011.11.025.
128. Li H, Sammon J, Roghmann F, Sood A, Ehlert M, Sun M, et al. Utilization and
129. perioperative outcomes of robotic vaginal vault suspension compared to
130. abdominal or vaginal approaches for pelvic organ prolapse. Can Urol Assoc J.
131. ;8(3–4):100–6. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.1858.
132. McFerrin C, Pilkington JE, Pilet H, Frilot CF, Gomelsky A. Abdominal versus
133. robotic sacral colpopexy: a detailed analysis of outcomes. Neurourol Urodyn.
134. ;40(7):1811–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24752.
135. Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L,
136. Gutman RE. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a
137. retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):33–7.
138. https://doi.org/ 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036.
139. Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year
140. outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
141. ;206(5):435.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.035.
142. Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Borah BJ, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB.
143. Perioperative complications and cost of vaginal, open abdominal, and robotic
144. surgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.
145. ;23(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000345.
146. Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB. Symptom relief
147. and retreatment after vaginal, open, or robotic surgery for apical vaginal prolapse.
148. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(5):297–309. https://doi.org/10.1097/
149. SPV.0000000000000389.
150. Jambusaria LH, Murphy M, Lucente VR. One-year functional and anatomic
151. outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal extraperitoneal colpopexy
152. with mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(2):87–92.
153. https://doi.org/10. 1097/SPV.0000000000000120.
154. Kusuda M, Kagami K, Takahashi I, Nozaki T, Sakamoto I. Comparison of
155. transvaginal mesh surgery and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ
156. prolapse. BMC Surg. 2022;22(1):268. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01702-
157. z.
158. Martin LA, Calixte R, Finamore PS. Reoperation after robotic and vaginal
159. mesh reconstructive surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med
160. Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(6):315–8.
161. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000194.
162. Nguyen JN, Yang ST. Perioperative outcomes after robotic versus vaginal
163. surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(3):415–21.
164. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11701-019-01006-0.
165. Robinson BL, Parnell BA, Sandbulte JT, Geller EJ, Connolly A, Matthews
166. CA. Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study
167. of perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr
168. Surg. 2013;19(4):230–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e318299a66c.
169. Westermann LB, Crisp CC, Mazloomdoost D, Kleeman SD, Pauls RN.
170. Comparative perioperative pain and recovery in women undergoing vaginal
171. reconstruction versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.
172. ;23(2):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000368.
173. Shveiky D, Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Kudish BI, Gutman RE. Robotic
174. sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal colpopexy with mesh: choosing the right surgery
175. for anterior and apical prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.
176. ;16(2):121–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181d690f3.
177. Chang CH, Su TH, Lau HH. The changes in bladder function and symptoms
178. after robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic
179. organ prolapse. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;63(1):68–72.
180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tjog.2023.05.016.
181. Smith BC, Crisp CC, Kleeman SD, Yook E, Pauls RN. Uterosacral ligament
182. suspension versus robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical pelvic organ
183. prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(2):93–8. https://doi.org/10.
184. /SPV.0000000000000704.
185. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al.
186. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled
187. trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12.
188. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000006.
189. Illiano E, Ditonno P, Giannitsas K, De Rienzo G, Bini V, Costantini E. Robot-
190. assisted vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for highstage pelvic organ prolapse: a
191. prospective, randomized, singlecenter study. Urology. 2019;134:116–23. https://
192. doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.043.
193. Kenton K, Mueller ER, Tarney C, Bresee C, Anger JT. One-year outcomes
194. after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg.
195. ;22(5):382–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000300.
196. Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic
197. compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized
198. controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/
199. AOG0b013e318231537c.
200. Martoccia A, Al Salhi Y, Fuschi A, Rera OA, Suraci PP, Scalzo S, et al. Robot-
201. assisted sacrocolpopexy versus trans-vaginal multicompartment prolapse repair:
202. impact on lower bowel tract function. Biomedicines. 2023;11(8):2105. https://doi.
203. org/10.3390/biomedicines11082105.
204. Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, Christmann-Schmid C, Mowat A, Chen Z,
205. Baessler K. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database
206. Syst Rev. 2023;7(7):CD012376.
207. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2.
208. Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Roboticassisted
209. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology.
210. ;63(2):373–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.033.
211. Chang CL, Chen CH, Chang SJ. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of
212. robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment
213. of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(2):297–308. https://doi.org/
214. 1007/s00192-021-04741-x.
215. Joint Writing Group of the International Urogynecological Association and the
216. American Urogynecologic Society. AUGS-IUGA Joint clinical consensus
217. statement on enhanced recovery after urogynecologic surgery. Int Urogynecol J.
218. ;33(11):2921–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05223-4.
Послать статью по эл. почте 