Skip to main content
JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons logoLink to JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons
. 2018 Jul-Sep;22(3):e2018.00009. doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2018.00009

Robotic Single-Site Sacrocolpopexy with Retroperitoneal Tunneling

Juan Liu 1,2, Elise Bardawil 3, Robert K Zurawin 4, Junwei Wu 5, Huaying Fu 6, Francisco Orejuela 7, Xiaoming Guan 8,
PMCID: PMC6169819  PMID: 30356342

Abstract

Introduction:

This series of cases was an investigation of the safety and feasibility of robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (R-LESS) as a method of performing sacrocolpopexy.

Case Presentation:

This is a retrospective series of 15 cases of R-LESS sacrocolpopexy with the V-Loc (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA) suture and a retroperitoneal tunneling technique performed by a single surgeon, combined with a literature review. Patient demographic information and perioperative data were analyzed. The standard robotic sacrocolpopexy steps were followed, but the surgeon used a combined technique of V-Loc suture and retroperitoneal tunneling to simplify the procedure. No additional ports were necessary in any of the patients.

Management and Outcome:

Using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP–Q) scoring method, the mean preoperative C-point of the 15 patients was +1.16 compared to the mean immediate postoperative C-point, which was −5.5. The mean total sacrocolpopexy time was 74.7 (range, 50–99) minutes and mean mesh anchoring time was 22.60 ± 3.85 minutes. The mean sacral promontory fixation and tunneling and mesh position times were 11.87 ± 3.02 and 5.80 ± 2.14 minutes, respectively. All 15 cases were performed without perioperative or long-term complications.

Discussion:

R-LESS in combination with the V-Loc suture and the retroperitoneal tunneling technique can be safely and feasibly performed, especially in sacrocolpopexy and, potentially, in other POP surgeries. With adequate and systematic training, surgeons can acquire the necessary skills to perform this complex surgical procedure.

Keywords: Pelvic organ prolapse, Retroperitoneal tunneling technique, Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site (R-LESS), Sacrocolpopexy, V-Loc suture

INTRODUCTION

Single-incision surgery is gaining popularity among surgeons and patients. It not only has an impressive cosmetic outcome,1 but it also reduces intraoperative surgical trauma, which decreases postoperative surgical pain.2,3 Evolving robotic instruments coupled with improving surgical techniques are making more complex single-site surgeries feasible for surgeons who perform advanced minimally invasive operations.

Sacrocolpopexy is considered the gold standard treatment for repairing apical pelvic defects (vaginal vault prolapse), with long-term cure rates reaching 90%.46 The sacrocolpopexy operation can be divided into 2 approaches: laparotomy and laparoscopy. Once laparoscopy is chosen, additional decisions must be made, as the procedure can be completed with the “straight-stick” or robotically with a single-site or multisite approach.

In 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the da Vinci robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California, USA) to be applied in clinical laparoscopic surgery. In 2014 the FDA gave clearance for the single-site wristed needle driver for use in single-incision surgery, which overcomes the challenges in single-site suturing. Currently, robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (R-LESS) can be safely used in many gynecologic surgeries, including hysterectomy, subtotal hysterectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, ovarian cyst excision, excision of endometriosis lesions, and even staging of low-risk surgeries for early endometrial cancer.712 However, there are still some technical challenges associated with R-LESS when compared with multisite robotic surgery. The learning curve and thus the necessary training period to achieve proficiency and safety are longer for R-LESS. Compared with procedures such as simple oophorectomy, ovarian cystectomy, or simple hysterectomy, R-LESS sacrocolpopexy is a more technically complex surgery requiring thorough knowledge of pelvic floor anatomy and advanced surgical skill allowing for both efficient dissection of surgical planes and laparoscopic suturing.

The senior author (XG) has published a video article of a case report regarding V-Loc suturing coupled with the retroperitoneal tunneling technique while performing an R-LESS sacrocolpopexy.13 However, there are limited reports of the safety and feasibility of this technique. In this retrospective case series, we used this combined technique to perform sacrocolpopexy and present our findings for 15 patients, including mean age, body mass index (BMI), gravidity, pre- and postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) quantification,14 operation time, and surgical complications.

CASE SERIES

Fifteen consecutive R-LESS sacrocolpopexies were successfully performed by a single surgeon using the V-Loc barbed suture and a retroperitoneal tunneling technique. No additional ports other than the primary umbilical single port were necessary in any of the cases. The research design involved patients who had undergone robotic single-site sacrocolpopexy with the principle investigator from January 2015 through January 2017. These patients were followed up in the clinic or by telephone for 3 months after surgery. Eligibility criteria for R-LESS sacrocolpopexy included patients who did not have any contraindication for surgery and symptomatic stage II–IV POP-Q.

The demographics and characteristics of the 15 patients are summarized in Table 1. Table 2 describes operation-related variables for the 15 patients. The mean age of the patients was 63 (range, 39–80) years, and the mean BMI was 26.9 kg/m2 (range, 18.37–31.79 kg/m2). The main risk factors for POP were likely increasing age and elevated BMI. Multiparity may be another risk factor based on the gravidity and parity shown in these 15 cases. The history of a vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation, total abdominal hysterectomy, bladder suspension, and transobturator tape sling are common surgeries within our patient population. Preoperative prolapse measurements most commonly showed stage 2–3 of POP-Q score apical prolapse. Using the POP-Q scoring method, the mean preoperative C-point of the 15 patients was +1.16 (one patient excluded, with a range from −1 to +4), compared to the mean immediate postoperative C-point, which was −5.5 (one patient excluded, with a range from −5 to −6). Three weeks after surgery, the mean C-point improved further, reaching−5.6 (range,−5 to −6, with 1 patient excluded). The mean total sacrocolpopexy time was 74.7 ± 14.02 minutes and mean mesh anchoring time was 22.60 ± 3.85 minutes. The mean sacral promontory fixation time was 11.87 ± 3.02 minutes and the mean tunneling and mesh positioning time was 5.80 ± 2.14 minutes. All 15 cases were performed without perioperative or long-term complications.

Table 1.

Patient Characteristics

Case Age BMI (kg/m2) Gravidity History Length of Stay (hours) Postop Satisfaction (No Prolapse Present)
1 39 28.9 G3P4 Vaginal SSF 23 Yes
2 69 24.85 G3P2 N/A 15 Yes
3 63 28.91 G3P3 N/A 17 Yes
4 56 18.37 G4P5 TAH, anterior repair 6 Yes
5 68 30.38 G3P3 Bladder suspension, sling, TAH 20 Yes
6 61 32.42 G2P2 LSH, TVT sling 13 Yes
No incontinence
7 68 23.95 G3P3 N/A 14 Yes
8 67 23.31 G4P3 TAH 19 Yes
9 60 30.74 G2P2 Bladder suspension, hysterectomy 32 Yes
10 80 24.06 G2P2 Bladder suspension, laparotomy 29 Yes
Hysterectomy
11 73 31.79 G4P3 Open gall bladder surgery, tubal ligation 28 Yes
12 70 24.84 G1P1 N/A 21 Yes
13 65 28.27 G2P1 Hysterectomy, incontinence surgery, history of BSO, vaginal prolapse repair 25 Yes
14 58 26.72 G1P1 History of cryotherapy of cervix 35 Yes
No incontinence
15 62 26.19 G7P6 N/A 96, due to fever from atelectasis Yes

BMI, body mass index; BSO, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; G, gravida; LSH, laparoscopic supravaginal hysterectomy; op, operation; P, para; SSF, sacrospinous fixation; TAH, total abdominal hysterectomy; TVT sling, tension-free vaginal tape sling.

Table 2.

Operative Related Variables

Case Preop Stage Preop POP-Q Postop POP-Q Postop POPQ 3weeks Concomitant Surgery Total Sacrocolpopexy Time (minutes) Mesh Anchoring Time (minutes) Sacral-promontory Fixation Time (minutes)
1 Uterine stage III, cystocele stage II C+3, Aa-1 C-5 C-5 LSH, TOT sling 89 29 19
2 Vaginal cuff III, retocele II C+1, Ba-1 C-6 C-6 TOT sling 86 25 15
3 Uterine stage II, cystocele III C 0, Aa+2 C 6 C-6 TLH, BSO 72 25 14
4 Vaginal cuff II, cystocele III C 0, Aa+1 C 5 C5 N/A 50 15 10
5 Vaginal cuff II, cystocele III C-1, Aa+2 C 6 C-6 N/A 68 20 12
6 Vaginal cuff I, cystocele III C-5, Aa+1 C-7 C-7 N/A 69 19 10
7 Uterine stage III, cystocele stage III C+4, Aa+2 C5 C-6 TLH, BSO 99 22 13
8 Cystocele III, vaginal cuff II, rectocele II C-5, Aa+2 C-5 C-7 Burch 71 23 15
9 Cystocele stage III C-5, Aa+2 c-7 C-7 BSO, perineoplasty, LOA 75 24 12
10 Stage II cystocele, Stage II rectocele C 0, Aa+1 C-6 C-6.5 LOA 97 25 11
11 Stage II cysocele, Stage II rectocele C-6, Aa+1 C-8 C-8 Supracervical hysterectomy, BSO, LOA 86 26 12
12 Stage II cystocele, stage II rectocele C-7, Aa+1 C-6 C-7 TLH, BSO 68 19 9
13 Stage II cystocele, stage II rectocele C-6, Aa+1 C-8 C-8 N/A 67 24 9
14 Stage II cystocele, stage II rectocele C-4, Aa 0 C-8 C-8 TLH RSO, TOT sling 56.5 17 7
15 Stage II cystocele C-5, Aa−1 c-6 C-6 TLH, BS, TOT sling, LOA 67 26 10

BS, bilateral salpingectomy; BSO, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy; LOA, lysis of adhesions; LSH, laparoscopic supravaginal hysterectomy; N/A, data not available; TLH, total laparoscopic hysterectomy; TOT sling, transobturator tape sling.

The surgical procedure is described in detail in our video article.13 A vertical transumbilical skin incision was created, and the da Vinci Single-Site platform, with a specialized silicone port (Intuitive Surgical) and two curved cannula with flexible instruments, was inserted.

For patients who needed hysterectomy, either robotic single-port total or supracervical laparoendoscopic hysterectomy was completed, and, depending on the procedure, the vaginal cuff or cervical stump was then closed with V-Loc sutures in a running fashion. The vesicovaginal and rectovaginal planes were then dissected until the Aa point and Ap points were reached. The assistant was pivotal in this step as he placed his finger vaginally at the Aa point and Ap point to help delineate the plane of the dissection.

The peritoneum overlying the sacral promontory was incised vertically in the midline to expose the retroperitoneal space underneath. This incision was extended medially toward the sigmoid colon mesentery 2–3 cm above the sacral promontory, which allowed for adequate exposure of the anterior longitudinal ligament and middle sacral vessels. Two 2-0 Gore-tex interrupted sutures (Gore Medical, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA) were preplaced in the sacral promontory to facilitate fixation of the mesh. A retroperitoneal tunnel was then created by undermining the peritoneum with the articulated needle driver. The needle driver was placed in the peritoneal opening over the sacral promontory, and the tunnel was created just medial to the right uterosacral ligament in the direction of the vaginal vault. The tunnel was created by using forward pressure and a sweeping motion to create a space within the retroperitoneum. When completed, the tunnel was situated between the right side of rectum and the right ureter. To prevent a ureteral injury, the right ureter was located and kept within the visual field during this dissection. Care was taken to identify the hypogastric nerves as they passed through this space to minimize nerve damage that could lead to visceral dysfunction and pain.

A sterile measuring tape was inserted into the abdomen via the single port to measure the distance from the Aa point and Ap point to the apex of the vaginal cuff. One centimeter was then added so that the bifurcation of the mesh would not lie flush to the apex. The Alyte Y-mesh (June Medical, Marlow, United Kingdom) was then cut according to these previously measured specifications. The anterior and posterior portions of the mesh were cut differently with either a straight or rounded end, to differentiate between them. The V-Loc 180-day delayed absorbable suture (Medtronic) was then placed through the lateral corner of the posterior edge of the mesh and threaded through the eye of the suture. This method saves time, so that when the mesh was inserted, the first stitch would be placed through vaginal tissue, as the V-Loc was already anchored to the mesh. The long arm of the mesh was then folded in an accordion fashion and loosely sutured together so that it would stay out of the surgical field.

The Alyte Y-shaped mesh was inserted through the assistant port and anchored to the anterior and posterior surfaces of the vaginal pelvic fascia. The mesh was anchored to the vagina via a continuous layer of single 2-0 V-Loc sutures. The long arm of the mesh was then passed through the retroperitoneal tunnel.

The tension of the mesh was adjusted based on the assistant's previous measurement, to minimize the overtension, and anchored to the sacral promontory with the 2 previously placed Gortex sutures. Finally, the peritoneum overlying the mesh was closed using a running V-Loc suture.

Choosing the appropriate instrument is crucial for completing surgical tasks in a safe and efficient manner. In these cases, the bladder flap was dissected with the Monopolar Hook (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA). A Single-Site Wristed Needle Driver (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was used to create the peritoneal tunnel and to anchor the mesh to the sacral promontory (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

(A) Before dissection. (B) Opening bladder flap and rectouterine peritoneal fold to expose the anterior and posterior vaginal wall. (C, D) Anchoring of mesh to the anterior and posterior surfaces of the vagina. (E) Closing the peritoneum. (F) Single-site Wristed Needle Driver and V-Loc suture.

Prophylactic intravenous cefazolin 1–2 g (Ancef, SmithKline Beecham, London, United Kingdom) was given before the start of surgery. Patients were discharged from the hospital with pain medication (600–800 mg; ibuprofen; Tylenol with codeine #3 or Motrin; Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA) and an abdominal binding was placed for reducing postoperative pain,15 when they tolerated an oral diet, were ambulatory with well-controlled pain, and resumed normal urinary function. For 6 weeks after surgery, the patients were counseled to avoid vaginal intercourse and not to lift anything heavier than 10 pounds. All patients were reassessed by measuring vaginal length 3 weeks after surgery.

DISCUSSION

With the evolution of minimally invasive surgery and the introduction of the idea of a “scarless” surgery, single-site surgery has seen a large increase in interest and promotion. In 2009, Lee and Kim16 first reported on laparoendoscopic single-site gynecologic surgery and recognized its applicability for hysterectomy. After that, more and more gynecologic surgeries were reported to be feasible, including sacrocolpopexy.13,1719

There are characteristics of laparoscopic single-site technology that make it more technically difficult to perform when compared with R-LESS. The main problem of traditional LESS is something known as the “chopstick effect.” Because all instruments must enter the abdominal cavity via the same incision, triangulation is markedly limited, and the instruments often collide, thus increasing the difficulty of the surgery. However, as is true of any novel surgical technique, the surgeon must become familiar with the technology and develop new surgical skills, even with the robotic single-site platform. Song et al20 reported that the learning curve for traditional LESS may be long, and suggested that the surgeon must operate on between 25 and 75 patients to become sufficiently skilled. The learning curve for LESS is lengthy for various reasons. The surgical instruments and the light source are aligned on almost the same axis, a necessity that violates the efficacy of triangulation of the instruments. This configuration in turn limits the range of motion of the instruments, which is evidenced by decreased dexterity, especially in tasks requiring fine motor movements such as suturing.

R-LESS surgery is more feasible than LESS for complex gynecologic surgeries for several reasons. The robotic software allows for the surgeon's right hand to manipulate the instrument to be placed through the left trocar port that crosses the midline and ends up on the patient's right internally. The same is true of the surgeon's left hand. Thus, the robotic software eliminates the spatial problems in LESS where the instruments cross over each other. The other major benefit of R-LESS over LESS is that a Single-Site Wristed Needle Driver (Intuitive Surgical) has been developed that makes suturing much easier. Ease of suturing is extremely important when planning sacrocolpopexy.

In 2016, Lee21 reported 6 cases in which the wristed needle driver was used in traditional sacrocolpopexy and concluded that this instrument is both easy and safe to use. Recently, a similar report of 25 cases of robotic single-site sacrocolpopexy demonstrated that the single-port robotic-assisted approach feasible. with low complication rates, minimal blood loss and postsurgical pain, fast recovery, short hospitalization, and virtually scar-free cosmesis.22 In our case series, the previous research results were echoed; however, our description of the feasibility of combination of V-Loc and peritoneal tunneling in robotic single site surgery adds to the literature regarding approaches to sacrocolpopexy.

V-Loc suturing allows for a unique beneficial approach to laparoscopic suturing, especially in single-site surgery. It has several benefits, including a preformed loop at the distal end of the suture that allows the first suture to be thrown without the need of tying a knot, which is very time consuming and challenging, even in R-LESS. It is self-anchoring within the tissue by the barbs that prevent reverse motion of the suture, and it can be easily cinched to the tissue, which can maintain even tissue–mesh tension during suturing. The sutures hold the incisional edges together firmly thus facilitating healing at the incision while minimizing the potential for an occult hematoma. The general absorption time for the suture is roughly 180 days, which allows enough time for both tissue healing and scar formation. Walgenbach and Shestak,23 described how use of the V-Loc suture can shorten the healing time of an incision. Mostafa and Borahay24 reported on 20 patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy with barbed delayed absorbable sutures and noted that it was safe and effective during a 1-year follow-up. Furthermore, a randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for sacrocolpopexy demonstrated that the barbed suture technique was 11–16 minutes faster for attaching mesh to the vagina than the nonbarbed suture method.25 This study also showed comparable anatomic outcomes at 12 months after surgery. Because suturing with knot tying using robotic single site surgery is very challenging, even with a wristed needle driver, we adopted this safe and effective technique to simplify the procedure.13 Lee and Zimmern26 used 2 running 2-0 V-Loc-180-day absorbable sutures placed on the mesh tail in abdominal sacrocolpopexies, demonstrating satisfactory anatomic outcomes. We found that self-anchoring barbed suturing can quickly anchor the mesh to the vaginal endopelvic fascia while keeping it flush against the vaginal tissue. This technique should reduce the formation of mesh erosion, even if there is vaginal wall penetration by the suture. V-Loc suturing may also reduce mesh erosion because it is a delayed absorbable suture. There have not been any mesh erosions in our 15 cases during the course of the study, but more studies over longer periods are needed to answer this clinical question.

The retroperitoneal tunneling technique provides a more natural curvature to attach the mesh from the vaginal apex to the sacral promontory. It also allows for easier adjustment and maintenance of mesh tension during the placement of sutures in the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacral promontory when compared with opening the entire retroperitoneal space. The use of peritoneal tunneling simplifies the adjustment of mesh tension, because the tunnel acts as an extra arm to hold the mesh in place. This feature of the technique is particularly important in single-site surgery because of the limited number of ports available. The assistant plays an important role in mesh adjustment by measuring the tension-free vaginal length and by assuring that the goal vaginal length is achieved when the mesh is anchored. Attention to the vaginal length decreases the chance of overtightening the mesh and failing to account for the natural postoperative shrinkage of both the mesh and the tissues. In addition to causing erosion, mesh that is too tight can cause the patient pain, which can necessitate its removal. Last year, we13 first reported this retroperitoneal tunneling technique for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. The tunneling technique may reduce the operative time and adhesion formation. Further studies are needed to assess whether the technique reduces intraoperative blood loss. All of our patients have been satisfied with their outcomes in terms of improvement of the prolapse and the cosmesis of the umbilicus. The major limitations of our study were that we had no comparison group and the sample of patients was small.

The clinical application of R-LESS has brought great changes to the field of minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. Because the learning curve of R-LESS is long, the surgeon must be skilled in traditional laparoscopy or robotic surgery before attempting to master the new technique. V-Loc suturing and retroperitoneal tunneling can make sacrocolpopexy an effective, feasible surgical option. R-LESS can be safely used for POP surgery especially for sacrocolpopexy.

Contributor Information

Juan Liu, Section of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery; Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Shi, China..

Elise Bardawil, Section of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery.

Robert K. Zurawin, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA..

Junwei Wu, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Shi, China..

Huaying Fu, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Shi, China..

Francisco Orejuela, Division of Urogynecology.

Xiaoming Guan, Section of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery.

References:

  • 1. Evers L, Bouvy N, Branje D, Peeters A. Single-incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus conventional four-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:3437–3448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Chen YJ, Wang PH, Ocampo EJ, Twu NF, Yen MS, Chao KC. Single-port compared with conventional laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:906–912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kliethermes C, Blazek K, Ali K, Guan X. Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) versus multiport hysterectomy: a post-operative pain analysis. JSLS. 2017. Oct-Dec;21(4); e2017.00065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27:3–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805–823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. WS H., P M, N PA, Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1606–1610, discussion 1610–1611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Stacey A, Scheib M, Amanda M, Fader N. Gynecologic robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: prospective analysis of feasibility, safety, and technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015:212:179e1–179-e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Akdemir A, Zeybek B, Ozgurel B, Oztekin MK, Sendag F. Learning curve analysis of intracorporeal cuff suturing during robotic single-site total hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:384–389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Sendag F, Akdemir A, Zeybek B, Ozdemir A, Gunusen I, Oztekin MK. Single-site robotic total hysterectomy: standardization of technique and surgical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:689–694. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Sendağ F, Akdemir A, Oztekin MK. Robotic single-incision transumbilical total hysterectomy using a single-site robotic platform: initial report and technique. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:147–151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Vizza E, Corrado G, Mancini E, et al. Robotic single-site hysterectomy in low risk endometrial cancer: a pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:2759–2764. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Cela V, Freschi L, Simi G, Ruggiero M, Tana R, Pluchino N. Robotic single-site hysterectomy: feasibility, learning curve and surgical outcome. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:2638–2643. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Guan X, Ma Y, Gisseman J, Kleithermes C, Liu J. Robotic single-site sacrocolpopexy using barbed suture anchoring and peritoneal tunneling technique: tips and tricks. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24:12–13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Bump RC, Mathieson A, BØ K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Kliethermes C, Balzek K, Ali K, Nijjar JB, Kliethermes S, Guan X. A randomized control trial for abdominal binder use folloing laparoendoscopic single site surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018; S1553–4650(17)31362–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Lee YY, Kim TJ, Kim CJ, et al. Single-port access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a novel method with a wound retractor and a glove. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:450–453. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Tome ALF, Tobias-Machado M, Correa WD. Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) sacrocolpopexy: feasibility and efficacy of knotless procedure performed with conventional instruments. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:885–887. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Tobias-Machado M, Chicoli FA, Costa RM, Jr, et al. LESS Sacrocolpopexy: step by step of a simplified knotless technique. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38:859–860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Marcus-Braun N, von Theobald P. Single port laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in a young patient presenting with grade III uterine prolapse and rectocele. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1445–1446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Song T, Kim TJ, Lee YY, et al. What is the learning curve for single-port access laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy? Eur Journal of Obstetrics Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158:93–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Lee SR. Robotic Single-Site® sacrocolpopexy: first report and technique using the Single-Site® Wristed Needle Driver. Yonsei Med J. 2016;57:1029–1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Matanes E, Lauterbach R, Mustafa-Mikhail S, et al. Single port robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy: our experience with the first 25 cases. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23:e14–e18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Walgenbach KJ, Shsstak KC. Pedicled TRAM breast reconstruction. Breast Dis. 2002;16:73–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Mostafa A, Borahay M, et al. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy using barbed delayed absorbable sutures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:412–416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:649–656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Lee D, Zimmern E. Abdominal mesh sacrocolpopexy without promontory fixation: the peritoneocolpopexy technique: initial results. J Urol. 2015:2089–2094. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons are provided here courtesy of Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons

RESOURCES