The objective of this study was to evaluate our technique of ultrasonography and robotic-assisted sacrocervicopexy with pubocervical fascia reconstruction (u-RALS-PFR) versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy (s-RALS) in the treatment of patients with symptomatic apical/anterior vaginal prolapse. A retrospective analysis was done using the data in two community hospitals. Thirty women presented with symptomatic vaginal apical prolapse and desired minimally invasive surgery (video): (a) standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy (s-RALS) (n = 15) or (b) ultrasound and robotic-assisted sacrocervicopexy with pubocervical fascia reconstruction (u-RALS-PFR) (n = 15) were eligible to participate. All participants underwent a standardized evaluation, including a structured urogynecologic history and physical examination with pelvic organ prolapse quantitative staging. There was longer operating room time in the u-RALS-PFR group compared with the s-RALS group (average difference 35 min); however, sacral promontory dissection time was less in the u-RALS-PFR (average difference of 15 min). The anterior/posterior vaginal dissection and mesh tensioning time was longer in the u-RALS-PFR, as expected. There was only one surgical and anatomic failure (7%) in the s-RALS group after 6 months of surgery (POP Q = Aa + 1, Ba0, Ap-2, Bp-3, C-7). Our technique of ultrasonography and pubocervical fascia reconstruction during RALS appears to be feasible and safe. It aims to improve anterior and apical support, minimize the use of mesh and improve visualization during surgery. u-RALS-PFR approach will add some additional time during surgery but may provide better outcomes.
Keywords: Apical prolapse; Endovaginal ultrasound; Mesh surgery; Pelvic floor ultrasound; Perineal pelvic floor ultrasound; Perineal ultrasound; Vaginal prolapse.