Comparing Postoperative Pain With Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy

被引:2
|
作者
Nilsson, Wesley [1 ,5 ]
Schmidt, Megan [2 ]
Turner, Lindsay [3 ,4 ]
Shepherd, Jonathan [1 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] UConn Hlth John Dempsy Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Minimally Invas Gynecol Surg, Farmington, CT USA
[2] Trinity Hlth New England, Dept Obstet Gynecol, Hartford, CT USA
[3] Univ Pittsburgh, Magee Womens Res Inst, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Urogynecol,Allegheny Hlth Network, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[4] Univ Pittsburgh, Magee Womens Res Inst, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Reprod Sci, Div Urogynecol & Pelv Reconstruct Surg, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[5] UConn Hlth John Dempsy Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Minimally Invas Gynecol Surg, 263 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT 06030 USA
关键词
Minimally invasive; Laparoscopy; Robotic; Pelvic organ prolapse; Pain; Sacrocolpopexy; HYSTERECTOMY; INFILTRATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jmig.2023.11.016
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Study Objective: To compare postoperative pain and pain-related outcomes after laparoscopic (LS-MISC) vs robotic minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (R-MISC). Design: A secondary analysis of an original placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining preoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen on postoperative pain after MISC. Setting: Planned secondary analysis of multicenter RCT. Patients: Women undergoing MISC. Interventions: Coprimary outcomes at 24 hours were total opioid use in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores comparing LS-MISC and R-MISC. The secondary outcome was pain scores using a pain diary through 7 days after the procedure. Measurements and Main Results: The original study was a double-blind, multicenter, RCT comparing IV acetaminophen with placebo that took place between 2014 and 2017. Given that the original trial was unable to show an impact from the use of IV acetaminophen, our analysis focused on the impact of surgical modality. We included 90 subjects undergoing MISC: 65 LS-MISC and 25 R-MISC. Most were Caucasian (97.8%) and postmenopausal (88.9%) with mean age of 61.2 +/- 7.2 years and body mass index of 27.6 +/- 4.4 kg/m(2). IV acetaminophen did not affect pain in the original study and was not different between LS-MISC and R-MISC. Concomitant hysterectomy was performed in 67% (LS-MISC) vs 60% (R-MISC, p = .49). LS-MISC underwent more perineorrhaphies (15.4% vs 0%, p = .04) and posterior repairs (18.5% vs 0%, p = .02). Operative time was longer with LS-MISC (208.5 +/- 57.3 vs 143.6 +/- 21.0 minutes, p <.01). Length of stay was longer with LS-MISC (0.9 +/- 0.4 vs 0.7 +/- 0.4 days, p = .02). Women undergoing LS-MISC consumed more opioid MMEs through 24 hours when including intraoperative opioids (48.5 +/- 25.5 vs 35.1 +/- 14.6 MME, p <.01). Using linear regression correcting for operative time and concomitant vaginal repairs, this difference disappeared. Likewise, when intraoperative opioids were excluded, there was no difference. There were no differences in 24-hour postoperative VAS scores, opioid use in the first week, or quality of life (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System - Pain Interference Short Form, all p <.05). Conclusion: When comparing VAS pain scores, MME opioid usage, and quality of life between LS-MISC and R-MISC, either there was no difference or differences disappeared after adjusting for confounders. Overall, opioid use, pain scores, and opioid side effects were low.
引用
收藏
页码:200 / 204
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of surgery data, complications, recurrences en resurgeries
    Morsinkhof, L.
    Alhafidh, A.
    Perik, M.
    Simonis, F.
    Grob, A.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2020, 31 (SUPPL 1) : S92 - S92
  • [22] Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review
    Callewaert, Geertje
    Bosteels, Jan
    Housmans, Susanne
    Verguts, Jasper
    Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben
    Van der Aa, Frank
    De Ridder, Dirk
    Vergote, Ignace
    Deprest, Jan
    GYNECOLOGICAL SURGERY, 2016, 13 (02) : 115 - 123
  • [23] Cost comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy
    Sears, S.
    Rhodes, S. P.
    Abrams, M.
    Wherley, S.
    Bauer, H.
    Shoag, J.
    Sheyn, D.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 228 (03) : S871 - S871
  • [24] Conventional laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy: tips and tricks
    Lenger, Stacy M.
    White, Wesley M.
    MINERVA GINECOLOGICA, 2016, 68 (01): : 67 - 77
  • [25] Robotic assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: Technique and experience
    Whelan, Christopher M.
    Kramer, Brandan A.
    Powell, Timothy
    Schwartz, Bradley F.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 177 (04): : 608 - 608
  • [26] Perioperative, postoperative and anatomical outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy
    Kilic, Gokhan Sami
    Lee, Toy
    Lewis, Kelsey
    Demirkiran, Cem
    Dursun, Furkan
    Unlu, Bekir Serdar
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2021, 41 (04) : 651 - 654
  • [27] A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Restorelle Y Mesh and Flat Mesh for Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy
    Ferrando, Cecile A.
    Paraiso, Marie Fidela R.
    FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2019, 25 (02): : 83 - 87
  • [28] Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: A prospective assessment of postoperative pain
    Webster, TM
    Herrell, SD
    Chang, SS
    Cookson, MS
    Baumgartner, RG
    Anderson, LW
    Smith, JA
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 174 (03): : 912 - 914
  • [29] A comparison of postoperative pain between robotic and laparoscopic gynecologic surgery
    Ferrante, K.
    Novetsky, A.
    Pua, T.
    Jain, R.
    Boyd, L.
    Blank, S.
    Curtin, J.
    Pothuri, B.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2010, 116 (03) : S148 - S148
  • [30] Comparative Perioperative Pain and Recovery in Women Undergoing Vaginal Reconstruction Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy
    Westermann, Lauren B.
    Crisp, Catrina C.
    Mazloomdoost, Donna
    Kleeman, Steven D.
    Pauls, Rachel N.
    FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 23 (02): : 95 - 100