Experience of reconstructive plastic robot-assisted surgery in patients with isthmocele after cesarean section

Abstract

BACKGROUND: According to several Russian researchers, the number of cesarean deliveries in different regions of Russia varies from 15.2% to 42%. The incidence of complications — inconsistency of the uterine scar (isthmocele) after surgery is 10%–15%.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the efficiency and safety of robot-assisted surgery in the correction of isthmoceles after cesarean section in patients of reproductive age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved seven patients aged 27–34 years with signs of isthmoceles after urgent or elective cesarean section 12 months to 6 years prior to hospitalization. A comprehensive dynamic examination (echography, magnetic resonance imaging, and office hysteroscopy), surgical treatment with the da Vinci Si robotic complex, and outpatient monitoring in the early and long-term period (1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months) were performed.

RESULTS: The patients were satisfied with the results of surgical treatment during outpatient monitoring due to the improved quality of life resulting from the reduction of pathological symptoms. The control echography (1, 6, and 12 months later) showed normal myometrial thickness (9–11 mm) and adequate blood flow in the metroplasty area in all patients. The “niche” was not visualized during office hysteroscopy 6-months after the metroplasty. Three patients became pregnant 16–20 months after the reconstructive uteroplasty and ended with a timely operative delivery. Two patients were followed up for their pregnancies at 12 and 29 weeks of gestation, while two women continued taking oral contraceptives and planned their next pregnancy at least a year later.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of the da Vinci Si robotic system for surgical correction of isthmoceles provides volumetric three-dimensional visualization of anatomical structures, reduces the duration of surgery and intraoperative blood loss, minimizes the number of intraoperative and postoperative complications, and contributes to accelerated postoperative rehabilitation of patients.

Keywords

isthmocele / metroplasty / robot-assisted surgical correction

References

[1] Filippov EF, Pirozhnik EG, Melkoniants TG, et al. Experience of transvaginal extraperitoneal approach in surgical treatment of uterine scar leak after caesarian section. Kubanskij nauchnyj medicinskij vestnik. 2018;25(1):40–45. (In Russ). doi: 10.25207/1608-6228-2018-25-1-40-45

[2] Филиппов Е.Ф., Пирожник Е.Г., Мелконьянц Т.Г., и др. Опыт использования трансвагинального экстраперитонеального доступа в хирургическом лечении несостоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения // Кубанский научный медицинский вестник. 2018. Т. 25, № 1. С. 40–45. doi: 10.25207/1608-6228-2018-25-1-40-45

[3] Davydov AI, Tairova MB, Shakhlamova MN. Surgical correction (metroplasty) of the complete failure of the uterine scar after cesarean section in a distant period. Vopr ginekol akus perinatol. (Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology). 2020;19(3):107–109. (In Russ). doi: 10.20953/1726-1678-2020-3-107-109

[4] Давыдов А.И., Таирова М.Б., Шахламова М.Н. Хирургическая коррекция (метропластика) полной несостоятельности рубца на матке после кесарева сечения в отдаленном периоде // Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. 2020. Т. 19, № 3. С. 107–109. doi: 10.20953/1726-1678-2020-3-107-109

[5] Ishchenko AI, Davydov AI, Aleksandrov LS, et al. Uterine scar incompetency after the cesarean section. Choice of surgical intervention method. Vopr ginekol akus perinatol. (Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology). 2018;17(4):51–59. (In Russ). doi: 10.20953/1726-1678-2018-4-51-59

[6] Ищенко А.И., Давыдов А.И., Александров Л.С., и др. Несостоятельность рубца на матке после кесарева сечения. Выбор метода хирургического вмешательства // Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. 2018. Т. 17, № 4. С. 51–59. doi: 10.20953/1726-1678- 2018-4-51-59

[7] Marino MV, Shabat G, Gulotta G, Komorowski AL. From Illusion to Reality: A Brief History of Robotic Surgery. Surg Innov. 2018;25(3):291–296. doi: 10.1177/1553350618771417

[8] Marino M.V., Shabat G., Gulotta G., Komorowski A.L. From Illusion to Reality: A Brief History of Robotic Surgery // Surg Innov. 2018. Vol. 25, N 3. P. 291–296. doi: 10.1177/1553350618771417

[9] Morelli L, Guadagni S, Di Franco G, et al. Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si®. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(1). doi: 10.1002/rcs.1728

[10] Morelli L., Guadagni S., Di Franco G., et al. Use of the new da Vinci Xi® during robotic rectal resection for cancer: a pilot matched-case comparison with the da Vinci Si® // Int J Med Robot. 2017. Vol. 13, N 1. doi: 10.1002/rcs.1728

[11] Popov AA, Atroshenko KV, Slobodyanuyk BA, Ashurova GZ, Zingan SI. Robotic Surgery in Gynecology. Kubanskij nauchnyj medicinskij vestnik. 2016;(1):116–120. (In Russ).

[12] Попов А.А., Атрошенко К.В., Слободянюк Б.А., Ашурова Г.З., Зинган Ш.И. Роботохирургия в гинекологии // Кубанский научный медицинский вестник. 2016. № 1. С. 116–120.

[13] Khatkov IE, Ponomareva YuN, Loginova EA. Robot-assisted laparoscopy in the treatment of gynecological oncological diseases. Endoscopic Surgery. 2020;26(2):5057. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/endoskop20202602150

[14] Хатьков И.Е., Пономарева Ю.Н., Логинова Е.А., Ульянова А.В., Иванова Л.Б. Робот-ассистированная лапароскопия в лечении онкогинекологических заболеваний // Эндоскопическая хирургия. 2020. Т. 26, № 2. С. 5057. doi: 10.17116/endoskop20202602150

[15] Krasnopol’skiĭ VI, Buianova SN, Shchukina NA, Logutova LS. Uterine suture (scar) incompetence after cesarean section: Problems and solutions (an editorial). Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2015;15(3):48. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17116/rosakush20151534-8

[16] Краснопольский В.И., Буянова С.Н., Щукина Н.А., Логутова Л.С. Несостоятельность шва (рубца) на матке после кесарева сечения: проблемы и решения // Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. 2015. Т. 15, № 3. С. 4–8. doi: 10.17116/rosakush20151534-8

[17] Bryunin DV, Mikhayelyan NS, Khokhlova Irina D, et al. Experience of laparoscopic correction of failure of the uterine scar after the cesarean operation. V.F. Snegirev Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2018;5(3):148–153. (In Russ). doi: 10.18821/2313-8726-2018-5-3-148-153

[18] Брюнин Д.В., Михаелян Н.С., Хохлова И.Д., и др. Опыт лапароскопической коррекции несостоятельности рубца на матке после операции кесарева сечения // Архив акушерства и гинекологии им. В.Ф. Снегирева. 2018. Т. 5, № 3. С. 148–153. doi: 10.18821/2313-8726-2018-5-3-148-153

[19] Aimi G, Buggio L, Berlanda N, Vercellini P. Laparoscopic repair of a symptomatic post-cesarean section isthmocele: a video case report. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(6):e17–e18. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.04.004

[20] Aimi G., Buggio L., Berlanda N., Vercellini P. Laparoscopic repair of a symptomatic post-cesarean section isthmocele: a video case report // Fertil Steril. 2017. Vol. 107, N 6. P. e17–e18. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.04.004

[21] Vitale SG, Ludwin A, Vilos GA, et al. From hysteroscopy to laparoendoscopic surgery: what is the best surgical approach for symptomatic isthmocele? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;301(1):33–52. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05438-0

[22] Vitale S.G., Ludwin A., Vilos G.A., et al. From hysteroscopy to laparoendoscopic surgery: what is the best surgical approach for symptomatic isthmocele? A systematic review and meta-analysis // Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020. Vol. 301, N 1. P. 33–52. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05438-0

[23] Nozhnitseva ON, Semenov IA, Bezhenar VF. The scar on the uterus after cesarean section and the optimal algorithm for diagnostics. Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2019;(2):85–90. (In Russ). doi: 10.22328/2079-5343-2019-10-2-85-90

[24] Ножницева О.Н., Семёнов И.А., Беженарь В.Ф. Рубец на матке после операции кесарева сечения и оптимальный алгоритм диагностики его состояния // Лучевая диагностика и терапия. 2019. № 2. С. 85–90. doi: 10.22328/2079-5343- 2019-10-2-85-90

[25] Antila-Långsjö R, Mäenpää JU, Huhtala H, Tomás E, Staff S. Comparison of transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018;97(9):1130–1136. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13367

[26] Antila-Långsjö R., Mäenpää J.U., Huhtala H., Tomás E., Staff S. Comparison of transvaginal ultrasound and saline contrast sonohysterography in evaluation of cesarean scar defect: a prospective cohort study // Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018. Vol. 97, N 9. P. 1130–1136. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13367

[27] Giral E, Capmas P, Levaillant JM, Berman A, Fernandez H. Interest of saline contrast sonohysterography for the diagnosis of cesarean scar defects. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015;43(11):693–698. (In French). doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2015.09.015

[28] Giral E., Capmas P., Levaillant J.M., Berman A., Fernandez H. Apport del’ hystérosonographie pour le diagnostic des isthmocèles // Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015. Tome 43, N 11. P. 693–698. doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2015.09.015

[29] Donnez O, Donnez J, Orellana R, Dolmans MM. Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(1):289–296.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033

[30] Donnez O., Donnez J., Orellana R., Dolmans M.M. Gynecological and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic repair of a cesarean scar defect in a series of 38 women // Fertil Steril. 2017. Vol. 107, N 1. P. 289–296.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.033

[31] Fedorov AV, Kriger AG, Berelavichus SV, Efanov MG, Gorin DS. Robotic-assisted abdominal surgery. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2010;(1):1621. (In Russ).

[32] Федоров А.В., Кригер А.Г., Берелавичус С.В., Ефанов М.Г., Горин Д.С. Робот-ассистированные операции в абдоминальной хирургии // Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2010. № 1. С. 1621.

[33] Vasil’ev AO, Govorov AV, Kolontarev KB, et al. Sovremennye roboticheskie tekhnologii v lechenii urologicheskikh zabolevanii. Medical alphabet. 2017;3(33):25–28. (In Russ).

[34] Васильев А.О., Говоров А.В., Колонтарев К.Б., и др. Современные роботические технологии в лечении урологических заболеваний // Медицинский алфавит. 2017. Т. 3, № 33. С. 25–28.

[35] Levinson KL, Auer M, Escobar PF. Evolving technologies in robotic surgery for minimally invasive treatment of gynecologic cancers. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013;10(5):603–610. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2013.827509

[36] Levinson K.L., Auer M., Escobar PF. Evolving technologies in robotic surgery for minimally invasive treatment of gynecologic cancers // Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013. Vol. 10, N 5. P. 603–610. doi: 10.1586/17434440.2013.827509

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector