Difference in Pain, Quality of Life Following Vaginal Hysterectomy With Vaginal Reconstruction Versus Robotic Colpopexy?

Since the introduction of the DaVinci robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA),
there has been considerable debate regarding its use, cost-effectiveness, and subsequent
impact on patient care. While some studies have examined surgical outcomes and analyzed
costs of this technique compared to open, laparoscopic, and vaginal approaches, it remains
unclear whether one route is superior.

Indeed, data evaluating robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches to hysterectomy have
shown similar patient results, but some reports note higher costs and longer operating times
with robotics. Others suggest contrary information, with comparable surgical time, reduced
blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower rate of conversion to laparotomy using
robotic-assisted hysterectomy compared to laparoscopic or abdominal. Research contrasting
robot-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy with abdominal myomectomy posit greater cost
associated with the robotic procedure, but enhanced benefit of decreased blood loss,
complication rates, and length of stay.

However, these issues have not been explored in urogynecologic patients. A single study
comparing robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic procedures in elderly women showed robotic
surgery to be associated with fewer postoperative complications than the vaginal route.
Nevertheless the procedures were not always performed in conjunction with hysterectomy, and
the analysis was retrospective.

In our practice, vaginal hysterectomy is the preferred method when correcting uterovaginal
prolapse. We then address the reconstruction either vaginally or robotically. Vaginal
repairs are comprised of the following: a vaginal vault suspension using the uterosacral
ligaments, enterocele repair, anterior repair, and posterior/rectocele repair. The robotic
procedure performed is a robotic sacral colpopexy using lightweight, polypropylene mesh, as
well as a posterior/rectocele repair transvaginally. Both of these techniques are
well-researched, effective approaches to addressing prolapse in a durable way. However, it
is not clear whether one is superior in patient-related quality of life outcomes. We seek to
compare patient quality of life by assessing differences in subjective impressions of pain
following these procedures

Inclusion Criteria:

- patients of Cincinnati Urogynecology Associates

- aged 18-90

- planning to undergo a vaginal hysterectomy with robotic or vaginal reconstructive
surgery for pelvic organ prolapse as well as a posterior/rectocele repair, with or
without a suburethral sling or ovarian removal.

- undergoing general anesthesia

- able to speak and read English

- able to understand the informed consent statement

Exclusion Criteria:

- scheduled for repairs not involving a hysterectomy

- use of mesh in the vaginal prolapse repair

- obliterative procedures to the vagina

- concurrent removal of a suburethral sling

- anterior, posterior or apical vaginal mesh kit at the time of their surgery

- performance of vaginal 'relaxing incisions' at the time of vaginal surgery

- concurrent anal incontinence repair such as a sphincteroplasty

- presence of uterine, cervical or ovarian malignancy

- use of regional anesthesia for their surgery.