Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: 8 years experience

Recurrence of Anterior Vaginal Prolapse After Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: Does Cervical Preservation Affect Outcome?

IMPORTANCE

Anterior vaginal prolapse (AVP) is the most common site of recurrence after sacrocolpopexy (SCP). Supracervical hysterectomy helps to prevent mesh exposure, but it is unclear if cervical preservation (CP) affects adequate reduction of AVP.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective was to determine the difference in AVP recurrence rates in patients who have undergone SCP with or without CP. Secondary outcomes were composite failure and complications rates.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of women who underwent robotic SCP between 2012 and 2019 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California. The first cohort included women with CP (prior or concomitant supracervical hysterectomy). The second included women without CP (prior or concomitant total hysterectomy). Primary outcome was defined as recurrent AVP beyond the hymen. Patients without 12-month follow-up were included in demographic and surgical data analysis only.

RESULTS

The charts of 373 patients with CP and 175 without CP were reviewed. Women with CP were more likely to undergo concomitant anterior repair at the time of SCP (14% vs 6%, P < 0.01); however, rates of AVP recurrence were not significantly different between groups (5% vs 3%, P = 0.26). Median follow-up time was 26 months (interquartile range, 14-38 months). Composite failure was similar between groups (17% vs 11%, P = 0.12). Women with CP were more likely to experience asymptomatic apical failure (6% vs 1%, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical preservation at the time of SCP is associated with an increased need for concomitant anterior repair but is not associated with higher rates of AVP recurrence or composite failure.

Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy

To compare pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence and morbidity between first and second line sacrocolpopexies. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexies for POP-Q stage ≥ 2, with or without a history of previous prolapse repair, performed with a similar technique between January 2012 and June 2019 in 3 European Gynecologic Surgery Departments. Patients were separated into two groups: first line sacrocolpopexy (FLS) and second line sacrocolpopexy (SLS). Each patient from the SLS group was age-matched with a patient from the FLS group. The primary outcome measure was reoperation procedures for recurrent POP defined as a symptomatic POP-Q stage ≥ 2 POP in at least one vaginal compartment. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative organ trauma, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative POP recurrence (operated on or not), global reoperation and mesh-related complications. During this period, 332 patients were included. After age-matching, 170 patients were analyzed: 85 patients in the FLS and SLS groups, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 3 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of recurrent POP (9.4% versus 10.6%, p = 0.7), recurrent POP reoperation (3.5% versus 5.9% p = 0.7), mesh-related reoperation (0% versus 2.4%, p = 0.5), global reoperation (3.5 versus 8.2%, p = 0.3), operative time (198 ± 67 min versus 193 ± 60 min, p = 0.5), intraoperative complications such as organ injury (4.7% versus 7.1%, p = 0.7) and blood loss > 500 mL (2.4% versus 0%, p = 0.5). Patients who underwent a first or a second line sacrocolpopexy seemed to have similar rates of prolapse recurrence and complications.

Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to compare the morbidity and long-term efficacy after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexies for POP-Q stage 2-4 vaginal prolapse performed between September 2015 and October 2018 in 2 Gynecologic Surgery Departments of France. Patients were separated into two groups: a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy group (LS) and a robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy group (RAS). The primary outcome measure was reoperation procedures for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

RESULTS

Two hundred and fourteen patients were included, 160 patients (75%) in the LS group and 54 patients (25%) in the RAS group. After a mean follow-up of 32.8 months, reoperation rate for recurrent POP and the recurrent POP rate were greater in the RAS group (9.2% versus 1.2%, p = 0.01 and 25.9% versus 7.5%, p = 0.0003, respectively). No significant difference was found in terms of immediate intraoperative (3.1% versus 1.8%, p = 1) and postoperative complications (1.9% versus 1.8%, p = 1). On comparing the 2 groups by bivariate analysis, RAS significantly increased the odds of reoperation for POP recurrence (OR = 7.8 CI 95% [1.5-41.6], p = 0.02) and the odds of global reoperation (OR = 3.8 CI 95% [1.4-10.4], p = 0.0095). Similarly, multivariate logistic analysis showed that RAS increased the risks of global reoperation (OR = 3.8 CI 95% [1.3-10.6], p = 0.01) after controlling high-grade prolapse.

CONCLUSION

Robotic sacrocolpopexy does not appear to give long-term clinical benefits. Recurrent POP and reoperation procedures seem to be more frequent in case of robotic-assisted surgery.

Laparoscopic monolateral suspension for vaginal vault prolapse: a report of an exit surgical strategy during sacralcolpopexy

BACKGROUND

Vaginal vault prolapse is the most frequent long-term complication in patients undergoing hysterectomy and sacralcolpopexy is considered the gold standard. We report our surgical strategy maintaining single-arm mesh when the sacral promontory is not accessible to fix the mesh for an unknown sacral osteophytosis during a laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy. This is significant because, to our knowledge, the bone variant as a procedure limiting factor has never been described before. This opens new horizons for the sacralcolpopexy surgery, because it becomes necessary to know of a valid surgical alternative with mesh maintenance if this complication occurs again or to perform an assessment of the accessibility of the sacral promontory immediately after its dissection.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case of a 75-year-old woman with recurrence of vaginal vault prolapse. A laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy was recommended. During surgery, we found that the procedure was not feasible due to the presence of an unknown osteophytosis of the sacrum which prevented the fixing of the mesh to the sacral promontory. We decided to proceed with a single-arm lateral suspension by using a modified approach of the original technique, maintaining the mesh originally shaped for the sacral colpopexy. At follow-up, the vaginal vault is well suspended.

CONCLUSION

This exit strategy may represent a valid surgical alternative when laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is not possible for anatomical variants, allowing to keep the laparoscopic approach using mesh. To our knowledge, cases in which the anatomical bone variant prevented access to the sacral promontory have never been described in the literature, as bone evaluation has never been considered a limiting element of this procedure.

Long-term safety and efficacy of laparoscopically placed mesh for apical prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Concerns regarding the use of vaginal mesh for prolapse have led to questions about the safety and efficacy of abdominally placed mesh. Mesh procedures for treating apical prolapse have become popular, either a laparoscopic hysteropexy (LSH) for uterine prolapse or a sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for vaginal vault prolapse. Robust long-term safety and efficacy data for these procedures are essential.

METHODS

All patients who had LSH or LSC since 2010 were invited back for face-to-face review and examination. Case notes were reviewed for surgical morbidities and patients were questioned about short- and long-term complications. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale was used to assess prolapse, bladder and bowel symptoms postoperatively.

RESULTS

One hundred twelve patients were included in the review, 93 of whom were examined. The median time since surgery was 6 years (range 1-9 years); 2.7% cases had an intraoperative complication, two conversions to laparotomy and one bladder injury. Overall, 17.3% patients sought medical review postoperatively, with 10.7% having problems with their skin incisions. With regard to mesh safety, there was one case of bowel obstruction requiring resection following LSH and two vaginal mesh exposures following LSC; 97% had stage 1 or less apical prolapse at long-term follow-up and 79.6% reported symptoms of prolapse to be 'much better' or 'very much better' on the PGI-I scale.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows excellent long-term results from LSC and LSH with comprehensive follow-up, demonstrating a very low and acceptable level of intraoperative, short- and long-term complications.

Risk of de novo posterior vaginal prolapse after anterior laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: Evaluation at one year

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Treatment of anterior vaginal and/or apical prolapse by sacrocolpopexy is most often performed by systematic placement of two non-resorbable meshes, anterior and posterior, whether or not there is an associated posterior vaginal prolapse. We believe that isolated correction of an anterior vaginal and/or apical prolapse in the absence of posterior vaginal prolapse is not associated with a higher rate of de novo posterior vaginal prolapse.

METHOD

A prospective, observational, monocenter study performed in the Gynecology unit of the Conception UHC in Marseille from May 2011 to October 2014. Patients over 18 years of age exhibiting an anterior vaginal and/or apical prolapse of stage ≥ 2 of the POP-Q classification resulting in functional impairment with alteration of the quality of life, without an associated posterior vaginal prolapse were included and underwent a laparoscopic anterior sacrocolpopexy (ASP). They were seen again in consultation one year from the intervention. Validated quality of life questionnaires were completed pre- and one year postoperatively.

RESULTS

50 patients were included. The rate of de novo posterior vaginal prolapse was 8/50 (16 %). At one year, there was a significant improvement in terms of the SPDI-20 and SPIQ-7 (p < 0.0001) questionnaire, without significant improvement in the quality of sexual function (PISQ-12 questionnaire) (p = 0.073).

CONCLUSION

The risk of de novo posterior vaginal prolapse at one year is low when an ASP is carried out.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive literature review on current practice

Sacrocolpopexy is considered the preferred treatment for vaginal vault. However, numerous technical variants are being practiced. We aimed to summarize the recent literature in relation to technical aspects of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). We focused on surgical technique, mesh type, concomitant surgeries, and training aspects. We performed 2 independent literature searches in Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Embase electronic databases including the keywords: 'sacrocolpopexy', 'sacral colpopexy' and 'promontofixation'. Full text English-language studies of human patients, who underwent LSC, published from January 1, 2008 to February 26, 2019, were included. Levels of evidence using the modified Oxford grading system were assessed in order to establish a report of the available literature of highest level of evidence. Initially, 953 articles were identified. After excluding duplicates and abstracts screening, 35 articles were included. Vaginal fixation of the mesh can be performed with barbed or non-barbed (level 1), absorbable or non-absorbable sutures (level 2). Fixation of the mesh to the promontory can be performed with non-absorbable sutures or non-absorbable tackers (level 2). The current literature supports using type 1 mesh (level 2). Ventral mesh rectopexy can safely be performed with LSC while concurrent posterior repair has no additional benefit (level 2). There is no consensus regarding the preferred type of hysterectomy or the benefit of an additional anti urinary incontinence procedure. A structured learning program, as well as the number of procedures needed in order to be qualified for performing LSC is yet to be established. There are numerous variants for performing LSC. For many of its technical aspects there is little consensus.

Long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal robotic reconstructive pelvic floor surgery: a prospective study and overview of the literature

Introduction and hypothesis

The use of synthetic mesh in transvaginal pelvic floor surgery has been subject to debate internationally. Although mesh erosion appears to be less associated with an abdominal approach, the long-term outcome has not been studied intensively. This study was set up to determine the long-term mesh erosion rate following abdominal pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Methods

A prospective, observational cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care setting. All consecutive female patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocolporectopexy in 2011 and 2012 were included. Primary outcome was mesh erosion. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation (6 weeks, 1 year, 5 years) with a clinical examination and questionnaire regarding pelvic floor symptoms was performed. Mesh-related complications were assessed using a transparent vaginal speculum, proctoscopy, and digital vaginal and rectal examination. Kaplan–Meier estimates were calculated for mesh erosion. A review of the literature on mesh exposure after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy was performed (≥12 months’ follow-up).

Results

Ninety-six of the 130 patients included (73.8%) were clinically examined. Median follow-up time was 48.1 months (range 36.0–62.1). Three mesh erosions were diagnosed (3.1%; Kaplan–Meier 4.9%, 95% confidence interval 0–11.0): one bladder erosion for which mesh resection and an omental patch interposition were performed, and two asymptomatic vaginal erosions (at 42.7 and 42.3 months) treated with estrogen cream in one. Additionally, 22 patients responded solely by questionnaire and/or telephone; none reported mesh-related complaints. The literature, mostly based on retrospective studies, described a median mesh erosion rate of 1.9% (range 0–13.3%).

Conclusions

The long-term rate of mesh erosion following an abdominally placed synthetic graft is low.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00192-019-03990-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

AIM

To compare total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh (TVM) and laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

Six hundred and seventy patients with POP stage 3 and 4 underwent LSC (n = 350) or TVM (n = 320) at the West China Second Hospital, Sichuan University between January 2011 and December 2016. Retrospective analysis was done to compare the POP-Q value before operation and 6 months, 5 years after operation, also compare the, patient global impression of change (PGI-C), pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Patients were followed for a median 36 months. Thirty-five patients in the LSC and 37 in the TVM groups were lost to follow-up.

RESULTS

Preoperative POP value and disease course were similar (P = 0.075). The LSC group was younger (52.8 ± 6.8 vs. 63.9 ± 8.7 years, P = 0.037). Intraoperative bleeding was smaller in the LSC group (74.4 ± 33.2 vs. 150.4 ± 80.3 mL, P < 0.01), with longer operation time (130.0 ± 34.1 min vs 100.4 ± 40.4 min, P < 0.035). The patients were followed for 10-60 months (median, 36 months). Postoperative PISQ-12 (P < 0.01) was better in the LSC group. PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 were improved after operation in both groups. Objective satisfaction (94.9% vs 91.9%, P > 0.05) and recurrence rate (8.4% vs 5.1%, P = 0.064) were similar. No infection or fistula occurred after operation in both groups. The complication rate of intraoperative bladder injury and postoperative perineal pain in LSC group was lower than those in the TVM group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LSC showed no serious adverse events and led to higher postoperative satisfaction than TVM in selected patients. Nevertheless, treatment should be selected in accordance with the willingness and condition of each patient.

Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacropexy on symptoms and quality of life. Predictive factors for postoperative dissatisfaction

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to evaluate the medium-term results of laparoscopic sacropexy (LSP) with validated self-administered questionnaires of symptoms and quality of life and to identify pre-, intra-, and postoperative predictors of postoperative dissatisfaction.

METHODS

The study included 152 women who had LSP for stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The study population comprised women who had completed the preoperative symptom questionnaire (including the PFDI-20 and ICIQ-SF). Postoperative questionnaires included those questionnaires as well as the PFIQ-7 and EQ-5D questionnaires, PISQ-12 sexual function questionnaire, and PGI-I questionnaire (to assess patient satisfaction).

RESULTS

In all, 92 women (60.5%) responded in the postoperative period; 75 (81.5%) had anterior and posterior mesh and 17 (18.5%) anterior mesh alone. Moreover, 14 women (15.2%) had a concomitant suburethral sling and 18 (19.6%) a concomitant subtotal hysterectomy. The mean follow-up time was 50.5 (± 20.3) months (4.2 years). PFDI-20 scores had improved significantly at 4 years (median: 47.4 before surgery vs. 34.4 afterwards, p = 0.002), and patient satisfaction was quite clear (PGI-I score = 1.8 ± 1.1). Nine women (9.8%) described recurring vaginal bulge symptoms, and 12 patients were reoperated during follow-up. Recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 8.11, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.28-28.9] and postoperative constipation (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 1.02-11.8) were strongly associated with poorer postoperative satisfaction, as was concomitant UI surgery (OR = 12.5, 95% CI 2.32-67.0).

CONCLUSIONS

LSP improved women's symptoms and quality of life. Postoperative constipation, sensation of prolapse recurrence, and concomitant UI surgery were strongly associated with postoperative dissatisfaction.

The Novel and Minimally Invasive Treatment Modalities for Female Pelvic Floor Muscle Dysfunction; Beyond the Traditional

Pelvic floor dysfunction is a clinical entity that is prevalent among female patients. Determining the exact underlying cause of pelvic floor dysfunction is difficult, and surgical intervention for this clinical entity may be challenging. Pelvic floor dysfunction can affect the quality of life of the patient by causing stress urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, or both. Well-defined surgical treatment options, minimally invasive approaches, and novel techniques for the treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction have been recently introduced. Here, we evaluated the management options available for patients with stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. We searched Medline and EMBASE databases for relevant articles by using the keywords “pelvic floor dysfunction,” “minimally invasive procedures,” “stress urinary incontinence,” “pelvic organ prolapse,” and “novel techniques”. Traditional treatment options for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse are beyond the scope of our review. Laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatments for pelvic floor dysfunction continue to evolve and develop. These minimally invasive techniques will soon replace open procedures. Alternative novel treatment modalities have also been developed from novel human-compatible materials and are emerging as successful treatments for stress urinary incontinence. The development of these various treatment options has implications for future surgical practice in the field of uro-gynecology.

Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common health problem. The lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for prolapse is 11%. POP significantly affects the effects on quality of life and activities of daily living. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has been viewed as the gold standard treatment for women with POP who desire reconstructive surgery. However, LSC is associated with technical difficulties, resulting in a long learning curve and operative time. Recently, our team introduced a new laparoscopic technique of inguinal ligament suspension (LILS) and had confirmed its safety and efficacy in treating vaginal vault prolapse. As a new surgical technique for POP, a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the LILS with the standard technique of LSC is necessary. Therefore, we will conduct a trial.

Methods

The trial is a randomized controlled trial. It compares LILS with LSC in women with stage 2 or higher uterine prolapse. The primary outcomes of this study are perioperative parameters, including surgical time, blood loss, intraoperative complications, and hospital stay as well as surgical anatomical results using the pelvic organ prolapse questionnaire (POP-Q) classification at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and annually till 5 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes are subjective improvement in urogenital symptoms and quality of life, postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, sexual functioning, and cost-effectiveness at each follow-up point. Validated questionnaires will be used and the data will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Based on an objective success rate of 90%, a noninferiority margin of 15%, and a dropout of 20%, 107 patients are needed in each arm to prove the hypothesis with a 95% confidence interval.

Discussion

The trial is a randomized controlled, multicenter, noninferiority trial that will provide evidence whether the efficacy and safety of LILS is noninferior to LSC in women with symptomatic stage 2 or higher uterine prolapse.

Trial registration

China Trial Register (CTR): ChiCTR-INR-15007408. Registered on 9 November 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2494-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Long-term outcomes of modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: a 3-year prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes of modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (MLSC) for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

From May 2009 to September 2012, a consecutive prospective observational study of 30 participants was conducted to evaluate MLSC as a treatment for symptomatic advanced POP at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) classification was used to determine the POP stage. Validated tools were used to evaluate symptoms (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, PFDI-20) and sexual function (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, PISQ-12). Measurements were recorded preoperatively and then at 3 months and yearly after surgery. We compared the follow-up results with the preoperative data.

RESULTS

All participants completed a 3-year clinical follow-up routine. The anatomical results at 3 months showed significant improvements (P < 0.05) compared with the preoperative results based on the POP-Q measurements. This improvement remained significant after 3 years (P < 0.05). The anatomical cure rate was 100% and 96.7% at 3 months and 3 years after surgery, respectively. Pelvic floor function remained significantly improved after surgery compared with preceding surgery (P < 0.05) according to the following measures: PFDI-20 (106.2 vs 36.0), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6, 47.9 vs 13.7), Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory-8 (CRADI-8, 29.2 vs 9.2), and Urinary Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6, 29.2 vs 13.2). The participants maintained a high level of sexual function (PISQ-12: 29.0 vs 35.1, P < 0.05). One case of mesh exposure (3.3%) and two cases of de novo dyspareunia (8.7%) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

MLSC seems to be a safe and effective procedure that achieves good long-term anatomical and functional results.

Nerve preserving vs standard laparoscopic sacropexy: Postoperative bowel function

AIM

To compare our developed nerve preserving technique with the non-nerve preserving one in terms of de novo bowel symptoms.

METHODS

Patients affected by symptomatic apical prolapse, admitted to our department and treated by nerve preserving laparoscopic sacropexy (LSP) between October, 2010 and April, 2013 (Group A or “interventional group”) were compared to those treated with the standard LSP, between September, 2007 and December, 2009 (Group B or “control group”). Functional and anatomical data were recorded prospectively at the first clinical review, at 1, 6 mo, and every postsurgical year. Questionnaires were filled in by the patients at each follow-up clinical evaluation.

RESULTS

Forty-three women were enrolled, 25/43 were treated by our nerve preserving technique and 18/43 by the standard one. The data from the interventional group were collected at a similar follow-up (> 18 mo) as those collected for the control group. No cases of de novo bowel dysfunction were observed in group A against 4 cases in group B (P = 0.02). Obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) was highlighted by an increase in specific questionnaires scores and documented by the anorectal manometry. There were no cases of de novo constipation in the two groups. No major intraoperative complications were reported for our technique and it took no longer than the standard procedure. Apical recurrence and late complications were comparable in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our nerve preserving technique seems superior in terms of prevention of de novo bowel dysfunction compared to the standard one and had no major intraoperative complications.

Postoperative anatomic and quality-of-life outcomes after vaginal sacrocolporectopexy for vaginal vault prolapse

OBJECTIVE

To assess anatomic outcome and quality of life (QOL) after vaginal sacrocolporectopexy among patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

A noncomparative observational study was conducted at Hanover Medical School, Germany, among patients who underwent vaginal sacrocolporectopexy for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse between May 1, 2006, and October 31, 2012. A validated German version of the Prolapse QOL (P-QOL) questionnaire was sent to eligible patients; respondents were invited for follow-up examination.

RESULTS

Overall, 128 patients were enrolled. Concomitant hysterectomy was performed among 82 (64.1%) patients, anterior colporrhaphy among 105 (82.0%), and posterior colporrhaphy among 58 (45.3%). After a mean interval of 26.5 months (range 1.0-81.3 months), seven patients exhibited recurrent vaginal vault prolapse of at least stage 2, giving a success rate of 92.3% (95% confidence interval 85.9%-96.5%). The P-QOL scores were either low (<40) or very low (<20), indicating high QOL. Regarding symptoms related to pelvic organ prolapse, patients reported little or no impact on QOL after vaginal sacrocolporectopexy.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal sacrocolporectopexy seemed safe and feasible, leading to anatomically correct fixation of the vaginal apex, high anatomic success rates, and good QOL. This procedure might be considered as an alternative to laparoscopic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

[Which prostheses to use in mesh sacrocolpopexy? Experimental and clinical study]

BACKGROUND

Sacrocolpopexy is the standard surgical treatment of genital prolapse of the upper vaginal wall. Nowadays, the laparotomy approach is progressively supplanted by the laparoscopic procedure for the same anatomical results. About sacrocolpopexy, to date it still remains details of the technique, which differ with surgical teams maintaining controversy. Among them, the choice of the meshes certainly creates debate.

OBJECTIVES

To state the basic physicochemical principles which are necessary for surgeons to select the most suitable prosthetic material to obtain the most beneficial anatomic and functional outcomes for patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The concepts of prosthetic biocompatibility, strength, shrinkage, deformation and elasticity are discussed. They are illustrated by experimental animal references and also human clinical references.

RESULTS

Macroporous polypropylene and polyester prostheses (pore size>1 mm) are properly integrated. Collagen prosthetic coating improves tissue integration. Absorbable and nonabsorbable ultralight prostheses expose patients to a high risk of recurrence. Multifilament polyester wide pore-side prostheses have less retraction and are more flexible than monofilament polypropylene prostheses.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The prosthetic cut-off weight below which the mesh does not offer any guarantee of strength is not precisely known. Moreover, the benefit of weight reduction is not proved. Currently, heavy weight multifilament polyester prostheses with wide pore size, more than 1mm, appear to be the most appropriate meshes for sacrocolpopexy without vaginal incision.

Apical prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim was to review the safety and efficacy of pelvic organ prolapse surgery for vaginal apical prolapse.

METHODS

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials (RCT) or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 case reports. The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.

RESULTS

Abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC) has a higher success rate than sacrospinous colpopexy with less SUI and postoperative dyspareunia for vault prolapse. ASC had greater morbidity including operating time, inpatient stay, slower return to activities of daily living and higher cost (grade A). ASC has the lowest inpatient costs compared with laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) and robotic sacral colpopexy (RSC). LSC has lower inpatient costs than RSC (grade B).In single RCTs the RSC had longer operating time than both ASC and LSC (grade B). In small trials objective outcomes appear similar although postoperative pain was greater in RSC. LSC is as effective as ASC with reduced blood loss and admission time (grade C). The data relating to operating time are conflicting. ASC performed with polypropylene mesh has superior outcomes to fascia lata (level I), porcine dermis and small intestine submucosa (level 3; grade B). In a single RCT, LSC had a superior objective and subjective success rate and lower reoperation rate compared with polypropylene transvaginal mesh for vault prolapse (grade B).Level 3 evidence suggests that vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension, McCall culdoplasty, iliococcygeus fixation and colpocleisis are relatively safe and effective interventions (grade C).

CONCLUSION

Sacral colpopexy is an effective procedure for vault prolapse and further data are required on the route of performance and efficacy of this surgery for uterine prolapse. Polypropylene mesh is the preferred graft at ASC. Vaginal procedures for vault prolapse are well described and are suitable alternatives for those not suitable for sacral colpopexy.

Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim was to review complications associated with pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

METHODS

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 (case reports). The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal mesh has a higher re-operation rate than native tissue vaginal repairs (grade A). If a synthetic mesh is placed via the vaginal route, it is recommended that a macroporous polypropylene monofilament mesh should be used. At sacral colpopexy mesh should not be introduced or sutured via the vaginal route and silicone-coated polyester, porcine dermis, fascia lata and polytetrafluoroethylene meshes are not recommended as grafts. Hysterectomy should also be avoided (grade B). There is no evidence to recommend routine local or systemic oestrogen therapy before or after prolapse surgery using mesh. The first cases should be undertaken with the guidance of an experienced surgeon in the relevant technique (grade C). Expert opinion suggests that by whatever the surgical route pre-operative urinary tract infections are treated, smoking is ceased and antibiotic prophylaxis is undertaken. It is recommended that a non-absorbable synthetic mesh should not be inserted into the rectovaginal septum when a rectal injury occurs. The placement of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh into the vesicovaginal septum may be considered after a bladder injury has been repaired, if the repair is considered to be satisfactory. It is possible to perform a hysterectomy in association with the introduction of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh inserted vaginally, but this is not recommended routinely.

A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse

CONTEXT

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) represents the superior treatment for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) but is associated with increased length of stay, analgesic requirement, and cost compared with transvaginal procedures. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSC) may offer shorter postoperative recovery while maintaining equivalent rates of cure.

OBJECTIVE

This review evaluates the literature on LSC and RSC for clinical outcomes and complications.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A PubMed search of the available literature from 1966 to 2013 on LSC and RSC with a follow-up of at least 12 mo was performed. A total of 256 articles were screened, 69 articles selected, and outcomes from 26 presented. A review, not meta-analysis, was conducted due to the quality of the articles.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

LSC has become a mature technique with results from 11 patient series encompassing 1221 patients with a mean follow-up of 26 mo. Mean operative time was 124 min (range: 55-185) with a 3% (range: 0-11%) conversion rate. Objective cure was achieved in 91% of patients, with similar satisfaction rates (92%). Six patient series encompassing 363 patients treated with RSC with a mean follow-up of 28 mo have been reported. Mean operative time was 202 min (range: 161-288) with a 1% (range: 0-4%) conversion rate. Objective cure rate was 94%, with a 95% subjective success rate. Overall, early outcomes and complication rates for both LSC and RSC appeared comparable with open ASC.

CONCLUSIONS

LSC and RSC provide excellent short- to medium-term reconstructive outcomes for patients with POP. RSC is more expensive than LSC. Further studies are required to better understand the clinical performance of RSC versus LSC and confirm long-term efficacy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy represent attractive minimally invasive alternatives to abdominal sacrocolpopexy. They may offer reduced patient morbidity but are associated with higher costs.

Reconstructive laparoscopic prolapse surgery to avoid mesh erosions

Introduction: The objective of the study is to examine the efficacy of the purely laparoscopic reconstructive management of cystocele and rectocele with mesh, to avoid the risk of erosion by the graft material, a well known complication in vaginal mesh surgery.

Material and methods: We performed a prospective, single-case, non-randomized study in 325 patients who received laparoscopic reconstructive management of pelvic organe prolaps with mesh. The study was conducted between January 2004 and December 2012 in a private clinic in India. The most common prolapse symptoms were reducible vaginal lump, urinary stress incontinence, constipation and flatus incontinence, sexual dysfunction and dypareunia. The degree e of the prolaps was staged according to POPQ system. The approach was purely laparoscopic and involved the use of polypropylene (Prolene) or polyurethane with activated regenerated cellulose coating (Parietex) mesh.

Results: The mean age was 55 (30–80) years and the most of the patients were multiparous (272/325). The patients received a plastic correction of the rectocele only (138 cases), a cystocele and rectocele (187 cases) with mesh. 132 patients had a concomitant total hysterectomy; in 2 cases a laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy was performed and 190 patients had a laparoscopic colposuspension. The mean operation time was 82.2 (60–210) minutes. The mean follow up was 3.4 (3–5) years. Urinary retention developed in 1 case, which required a new laparoscopical intervention. Bladder injury, observed in the same case was in one session closed with absorbable suture. There were four recurrences of the rectocele, receiving a posterior vaginal colporrhaphy. Erosions of the mesh were not reported or documented.

Conclusion: The pure laparoscopic reconstructive management of the cystocele and rectocele with mesh seems to be a safe and effective surgical procedure potentially avoiding the risk of mesh erosions.

Prevention of complications related to the use of prosthetic meshes in prolapse surgery: guidelines for clinical practice

The objective of the study was to provide guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CNGOF), based on the best evidence available, concerning adverse events related to surgical procedures involving the use of prosthetic meshes. French and English-language articles from Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database were searched, using key words (mesh; pelvic organ prolapse; cystocele; rectocele; uterine prolapse; complications; adverse event; sacral colpopexy; extrusion; infection). As with any surgery, recommendations include perioperative smoking cessation (Expert opinion) and compliance with the prevention of nosocomial infections (regulatory recommendation). There is no evidence to recommend routine local or systemic estrogen therapy before or after prolapse surgery using mesh, regardless of the surgical approach (Grade C). Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended, regardless of the approach (Expert opinion). It is recommended to check for pre-operative urinary tract infection and treat it (Expert opinion). The first procedure should be undertaken under the guidance of a surgeon experienced in the relevant technique (Grade C). It is recommended not to place a non-absorbable synthetic mesh into the rectovaginal septum when a rectal injury occurs (Expert opinion). Placement of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh into the vesicovaginal septum may be considered after suturing of a bladder injury if the suture is considered to be satisfactory (Expert opinion). If a synthetic mesh is placed by vaginal route, it is recommended to use a macroporous polypropylene monofilament mesh (Grade B). It is recommended not to use polyester mesh for vaginal surgery (Grade B). It is permissible to perform hysterectomy associated with the placement of a non-absorbable synthetic mesh placed by the vaginal route but this is not routinely recommended (Expert opinion). It is recommended to minimize the extent of the colpectomy (Expert opinion). The laparoscopic approach is recommended for sacral colpopexy (Expert opinion). It is recommended not to place and suture meshes by the vaginal route when a sacral colpopexy is performed (Grade B). It is recommended not to use silicone-coated polyester, porcine dermis, fascia lata, and polytetrafluoroethylene meshes (Grade B). It is recommended to use polyester (without silicone coating) or polypropylene meshes (Grade C). Suture of the meshes to the promontory can be performed using thread/needle or tacks (Grade C). Peritonization is recommended to cover the meshes (Grade C). If hysterectomy is required, it is recommended to perform a subtotal hysterectomy (Expert opinion). Implementation of this guideline should decrease the prevalence of complications related to surgical procedures involving the use of prosthetic meshes.

[Laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of urogenital prolapse. Current status]

Urogenital prolapse is an emerging problem because of the increasing life expectancy of populations. Nearly 42% of women between 15 and 97 years have a pelvic floor disorder (PFD). On the basis of Medline search, we present the main laparoscopical techniques to treat PFD: Burch, sacrocolpopexy, lateral suspension, uterosacral suspension, paravaginal repair, the benefits of laparoscopic surgery, its success rates and complications, and response to various questions that frequently arise about some techniques: should we perform a hysterectomy? Should we make a paravaginal repair? Should we treat prophylactically a stress urinary incontinence? What type of mesh should we use? What to prefer: staples or sutures? Is the posterior mesh necessary?

Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare symptomatic and anatomic outcomes 1 year after robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

STUDY DESIGN

Our retrospective cohort study compared women who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) with 1 surgeon to those who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) as part of the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts trial. Our primary outcome was a composite measure of vaginal bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for prolapse.

RESULTS

We studied 447 women (125 with RSC and 322 with ASC). Baseline characteristics were similar. There were no significant differences in surgical failures 1 year after surgery based on our primary composite outcome (7/86 [8%] vs 12/304 [4%]; P = .16). When we considered anatomic failure, there were also no significant differences between RSC and ASC (4/70 [6%] vs 16/289 [6%]; P = .57).

CONCLUSION

One year after sacrocolpopexy, women who underwent RSC have similar symptomatic and anatomic success compared with those women who underwent ASC.

Pelvic organ prolapse: review of the aetiology, presentation, diagnosis and management

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition affecting a large number of women. Incidence increases after the menopause. Age, parity and obesity are the most consistently reported risk factors. Many women can be asymptomatic of prolapse but common symptoms include a sensation of a bulge or fullness in the vagina or urinary, bowel or sexual dysfunction. Management depends upon symptoms and the type and grade of the prolapse as well as any associated medical co-morbidities. Management options include expectant, conservative or surgical approaches. Up to 10% of women having a surgical procedure for prolapse will require a second procedure. It is, therefore, important to consider lifestyle modifications such as weight loss and conservative measures including pelvic floor muscle training, topical estrogens and pessaries as initial management options.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy

The current 'gold standard' surgical repair for apical prolapse is the abdominal mesh sacrocolpopexy. Use of a robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgical approach has been demonstrated to be feasible as a minimally invasive approach and is gaining popularity amongst pelvic floor reconstructive surgeons. Although outcome data for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) is only just emerging, several small series have demonstrated anatomic and functional outcomes, as well as complication rates, comparable to those reported for open surgery. The primary advantages thus far for RASC over open surgery include decreased blood loss and shorter hospital stay.

Internal pudendal artery injury during prolapse surgery using nonanchored mesh

Herein is presented the case of a patient with stage 2 uterine prolapse treated surgically using nonanchored mesh. Complications were internal pudendal artery injury and a massive presacral hematoma that formed after surgery. Transcatheter arterial embolization was performed immediately, and the bleeding stopped. The patient subsequently experienced difficulty micturating and defecating because of presacral hematoma compression. Self-micturation and defecation capabilities were regained gradually at approximately 1 week after surgery. The hematoma resolved completely by 71 days postoperatively. Comprehensive knowledge of pelvic anatomy is important when performing surgery to treat prolapse using mesh kits. Removing the mesh and prophylactic antibiotic therapy is a means of conservatively managing a pelvic hematoma caused by prolapse surgery.

Mid-term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with anterior and posterior polyester mesh for treatment of genito-urinary prolapse

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using an anterior and a posterior polyester mesh, for the cure of genital prolapse at one year or longer.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a consecutive 5 year prospective observational study in which 119 patients presented with at least a Stage 2 apical prolapse, with an anterior or a posterior vaginal wall prolapse, who underwent a double sacrocolpopexy. Two large pore size (≥ 1mm) heavyweight (115 g/m(2)) multifilaments of polyester prostheses (Parietex Prosup PAC/GK 06, Sofradim-Covidien) were exclusively used for this technique. The prostheses were fixed on the levator ani muscles, the vagina and the sacrum with permanent extracorporeal laparoscopic sutures. Pre- and post-operative data referring to international pelvic organ prolapse quantitation classification (POP-Q), scores of quality of life and sexuality (French equivalent of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) and Pelvic organ prolapse-urinary Incontinence-Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12)) were compared.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of 34 months, 116 patients were accessible for evaluation. For these patients, the anatomical success rates (Stage 0 or 1) on the apical, anterior or posterior compartments were respectively, 97%, 89% and 98%. On the functional level, all the scores of quality of life and sexuality were improved.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the effectiveness of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the repair of the apical compartment prolapse. It also shows its effectiveness for the anterior compartment repair when the cystocele is moderate and limited to a median defect. In our experience, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with heavyweight polyester prosthesis is an effective treatment of the posterior defect.

A novel technique for the management of advanced uterine/vault prolapse: extraperitoneal sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard for advanced uterovaginal/cuff prolapse repair; however, early and late bowel complications are of concern. We report our experience with extraperitoneal sacrocolpopexy (ESCP).

METHODS

Twenty-three patients who underwent ESCP between 2007 and 2010 were analyzed in this retrospective cohort study. Preoperative assessment included Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact (PFIQ-7) questionnaires, and pelvic examination according to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Pre-operative findings were compared with postoperative values at the last follow-up using the Wilcoxon sign test.

RESULTS

Mean operation time was 86 ± 20 min. Twenty patients were discharged within 24 h. With a mean follow-up of 20 months, objective and subjective cure rates were 91.3% and 86.9%, respectively. No postoperative complications were evident with significant improvement in POP-Q, PFDI-20, and PFIQ-7 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

ESCP is a safe and effective sacrocolpopexy procedure that can potentially eliminate the risk of gastrointestinal complications.