Initial experience with robotic retropubic urethropexy compared to open retropubic urethropexy

Pooja Patel, Mostafa Borahay, Audrey R. Puentes, Ana Rodriguez, Jessica Delaisse, Gokhan Kilic

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of robotic retropubic urethropexy versus open retropubic urethropexy. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study (II-2). SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent robotic retropubic urethropexy from 1/1/12 to 6/1/12 by a single gynecologic surgeon were included in the case series. The control cases consisted of the last five consecutive open retropubic urethropexies performed by the same surgeon. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 10 patients (5 robotic cases and 5 open cases) were included in this study. Both groups were similar with respect to age, BMI, and obstetrical history. Mean hospital stay length and mean EBL were overall less for robotic cases than for open cases (1.2 days versus 2.6 days; 169 mL versus 300 mL). One of the 5 patients who underwent the open approach and 2 of the 5 patients who underwent the robotic approach sustained a minor intraoperative complication. All but one patient from each group experienced resolution of incontinence after the procedure. Two of the patients who underwent the open approach had postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic retropubic urethropexy may be a feasible alternative to open retropubic urethropexy. A larger study is necessary to support our observations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)315680
JournalObstetrics and Gynecology International
Volume2013
StatePublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Robotics
Intraoperative Complications
Case-Control Studies
Length of Stay
History
Surgeons

Cite this

Initial experience with robotic retropubic urethropexy compared to open retropubic urethropexy. / Patel, Pooja; Borahay, Mostafa; Puentes, Audrey R. ; Rodriguez, Ana; Delaisse, Jessica; Kilic, Gokhan.

In: Obstetrics and Gynecology International, Vol. 2013, 2013, p. 315680.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5564878fd95640ed9ff287d2e59f9b7e,
title = "Initial experience with robotic retropubic urethropexy compared to open retropubic urethropexy",
abstract = "STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of robotic retropubic urethropexy versus open retropubic urethropexy. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study (II-2). SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent robotic retropubic urethropexy from 1/1/12 to 6/1/12 by a single gynecologic surgeon were included in the case series. The control cases consisted of the last five consecutive open retropubic urethropexies performed by the same surgeon. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 10 patients (5 robotic cases and 5 open cases) were included in this study. Both groups were similar with respect to age, BMI, and obstetrical history. Mean hospital stay length and mean EBL were overall less for robotic cases than for open cases (1.2 days versus 2.6 days; 169 mL versus 300 mL). One of the 5 patients who underwent the open approach and 2 of the 5 patients who underwent the robotic approach sustained a minor intraoperative complication. All but one patient from each group experienced resolution of incontinence after the procedure. Two of the patients who underwent the open approach had postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic retropubic urethropexy may be a feasible alternative to open retropubic urethropexy. A larger study is necessary to support our observations.",
author = "Pooja Patel and Mostafa Borahay and Puentes, {Audrey R.} and Ana Rodriguez and Jessica Delaisse and Gokhan Kilic",
year = "2013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2013",
pages = "315680",
journal = "Obstetrics and Gynecology International",
issn = "1687-9589",
publisher = "Hindawi Publishing Corporation",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Initial experience with robotic retropubic urethropexy compared to open retropubic urethropexy

AU - Patel, Pooja

AU - Borahay, Mostafa

AU - Puentes, Audrey R.

AU - Rodriguez, Ana

AU - Delaisse, Jessica

AU - Kilic, Gokhan

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of robotic retropubic urethropexy versus open retropubic urethropexy. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study (II-2). SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent robotic retropubic urethropexy from 1/1/12 to 6/1/12 by a single gynecologic surgeon were included in the case series. The control cases consisted of the last five consecutive open retropubic urethropexies performed by the same surgeon. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 10 patients (5 robotic cases and 5 open cases) were included in this study. Both groups were similar with respect to age, BMI, and obstetrical history. Mean hospital stay length and mean EBL were overall less for robotic cases than for open cases (1.2 days versus 2.6 days; 169 mL versus 300 mL). One of the 5 patients who underwent the open approach and 2 of the 5 patients who underwent the robotic approach sustained a minor intraoperative complication. All but one patient from each group experienced resolution of incontinence after the procedure. Two of the patients who underwent the open approach had postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic retropubic urethropexy may be a feasible alternative to open retropubic urethropexy. A larger study is necessary to support our observations.

AB - STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of robotic retropubic urethropexy versus open retropubic urethropexy. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study (II-2). SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS: All patients who underwent robotic retropubic urethropexy from 1/1/12 to 6/1/12 by a single gynecologic surgeon were included in the case series. The control cases consisted of the last five consecutive open retropubic urethropexies performed by the same surgeon. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 10 patients (5 robotic cases and 5 open cases) were included in this study. Both groups were similar with respect to age, BMI, and obstetrical history. Mean hospital stay length and mean EBL were overall less for robotic cases than for open cases (1.2 days versus 2.6 days; 169 mL versus 300 mL). One of the 5 patients who underwent the open approach and 2 of the 5 patients who underwent the robotic approach sustained a minor intraoperative complication. All but one patient from each group experienced resolution of incontinence after the procedure. Two of the patients who underwent the open approach had postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic retropubic urethropexy may be a feasible alternative to open retropubic urethropexy. A larger study is necessary to support our observations.

M3 - Article

VL - 2013

SP - 315680

JO - Obstetrics and Gynecology International

JF - Obstetrics and Gynecology International

SN - 1687-9589

ER -