Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive literature review on current practice

Three-Year Outcomes of a Multicenter Study of Japanese-Style Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy(LSC) is widely performed and has been reported to safe and effective. However, statistical data on this technique are unavailable. Therefore, we designed the Japanese-style LSC, a further evolution of the French-style LSC, and initiated this multicenter study to prospectively evaluate its efficacy and safety. If the Japanese-style LSC is successful, we may be able to propose a more reliable and standardized procedure.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of Japanese-style LSC. The Japanese-style LSC is characterized by the dissection of the vaginal walls as distally as possible and fixation of the mesh with multiple sutures; fixation of the mesh on the promontory without traction; and closure of the peritoneum with high-level peritoneal sutures. We examined the primary (anatomical recurrence, adverse events, and quality of life) and secondary endpoints (voiding symptoms and sexual function) at 3 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

In anatomical recurrence, 24 patients (9.2%) were ≥ stage2 in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system at 3 years postoperatively, of which 4 (1.5%) and 20 (7.7%) were stages III and II respectively. No mesh-related complications were observed, and each questionnaire showed predominant improvement, except for sexual and evacuation functions.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese-style LSC demonstrated superior anatomical and functional results and we propose it to be an effective procedure.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Literature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life-related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH).

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery-related morbidities were also extracted where available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-28.33; I2 = 0%; P = 0.001; anterior compartment OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.26-4.30; I2 = 12%; P = 0.007) and subjective success (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.42-7.17; I2 = 39%; P = 0.005). No differences were found regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications, sexual dysfunction, and stress urinary incontinence rate after surgery. Hysteropexy showed shorter operative time and shorter hospital length with a pool mean difference of 27.37 min (95% CI 18.04-32.71; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001) and 0.7 days (95% CI 0.24-1.17; I2 = 75%; P = 0.003), respectively. Concurrent hysterectomy was not associated with a higher rate of mesh-related complications (P = 0.53). No major differences were found regarding recurrence and reoperation rate (P = 0.10 and P = 0.93, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh-related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024537270.

Analysis of the Clinical Value of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy to Support the Posterior Compartment in Women with Multicompartment Prolapse Including Rectocele

Background/Objectives: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is regarded as the gold standard treatment for apical or multicompartment prolapse, predominantly with anterior compartment descent. However, the optimal surgical approach for concurrent rectocele is still debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nerve-sparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in managing multicompartment prolapse with concurrent rectocele (≥stage II), analyzing the anatomical outcomes, the necessity for concomitant or subsequent posterior repair, and the impact on bowel function in women undergoing surgery. Methods: Data from all women who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without posterior repair between 01/2017 and 07/2022 for symptomatic multicompartment prolapse, including apical and posterior compartment descent ≥ stage II, were retrospectively evaluated. All women underwent a standardized urogynecological examination, including assessment of genital prolapse using the POP-Q quantification system, and completed the German-validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire before and after surgery (6-12 weeks). Preoperative anatomic support and bowel symptoms were compared with postoperative values. Results: In total, 112 women met the criteria for surgical correction. The majority (87%) had stage II posterior descent, with only 10% undergoing concurrent posterior repair during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Significant (p < 0.001) objective improvement was seen for all compartments post- compared with preoperatively (Ba: 0 (-1/2) vs. -3 (-3/-2), C: -1 (-2/0) vs. -8 (-12/-7), Bp: 0 (-1/0) vs. -3 (-2/-2); (median (25%/75% quartiles)). Subsequent surgery for persistent rectocele and/or stool outlet symptoms was required in 4% of cases. Most bowel-specific questions in the German-validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire showed significant improvement (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Nerve-sparing sacrocolpopexy alone appears to be a suitable surgical approach to correct multicompartment prolapse, including a rectocele ≥ stage II, and results in a reduction of objective signs and symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse.

Comparison of laparoscopic hysteropectopexy and vaginal hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse

BACKGROUND

To study whether laparoscopic hysteropectopexy (LHP) can be substituted for vaginal hysterectomy (VH) in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), we compared VH with the relatively new procedure, LHP.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 176 women who underwent LHP (N.=54) or VH (N.=122) for a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) System stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse between January 2011 and December 2019. We compared the surgical outcomes and overall rate of complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

The average length of hospitalization was 5.28 days for the LHP group and 7.08 days for the VH group. EBL (mL) in the LHP group was 32.2, whereas it was 47.7 in the VH group. The average operation time (min) was 68.2 in the LHP group and 98.9 in the VH group. Twenty-seven patients (22.1%) in the VH group had postoperative voiding difficulty compared with 2 patients (3.7%) in the LHP group. The overall number of intraoperative complications was 6 (11%) in the LHP group and 34 (27.9%) in the VH group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that LHP is more effective than VH in patients with POP. However, since the number of cases was small and retrospective studies are limited, we recommend a randomized controlled trial to be conducted in the future to confirm our results.

Postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters following mini-laparotomy vs. laparoscopic/robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a comparative retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is a debilitating condition impacting lives of millions of women worldwide. Sacrocolpopexy (SCP) is considered an effective and durable surgical technique for treatment of apical prolapse. The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes including postoperative complications and unanticipated healthcare encounters between patients who underwent SCP with a mini-laparotomy approach compared to patients treated with laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic SCP.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study including patients treated for apical prolapse at a university affiliated urogynecology practice. Patients over the age of 18 who underwent abdominal SCP between 2019 and 2023 were included. The cohort was formed into two groups: (1) Patients who underwent SCP through a mini-laparotomy incision (Mini-lap group); (2) Patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic-assisted laparoscopic SCP (Lap/Robot group).

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients were included in the final analysis. Ninety patients underwent either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted SCP, whereas 26 patients underwent SCP with a mini-laparotomy approach. Study participants exhibited a mean age of 63.1 ± 10.3 years, mean body mass index (BMI) of 25.8 ± 4.9 Kg/m2, and 77.6% of them identified as Caucasian. Upon comparison of demographic and past medical history between groups there were no statistically significant differences in age, BMI, menopausal status, race, parity or comorbid conditions. Patients in the Mini-lap group were less likely to have undergone previous abdominal surgery (11.5% vs. 50.6%, p < 0.001) and had more severe apical prolapse (stage 4 prolapse, 40% vs. 21.2%, p < 0.001) than their counterparts in the Lap/robot group. Regarding intraoperative parameters, length of surgery was significantly shorter in the Mini-lap group compared to the Lap/robot group (97.3 ± 35.0 min vs. 242.0 ± 52.6 min, p < 0.001). When focusing on the primary outcome, postoperative complications within the first 30 days after surgery, there were no differences noted between groups. Additionally, the number of unanticipated healthcare encounters, such as phone calls, clinic visits, emergency department visits, urgent care visits, readmissions and reoperations were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-laparotomy approach for SCP is safe with comparable intra- and postoperative complications, and unanticipated healthcare encounters compared to conventional minimally invasive methods.

Pathological Insights on Polypropylene Mesh Complications From Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Case Series

Background The use of polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is a common treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Despite its widespread application, postoperative complications such as mesh pain and infection sometimes necessitate the removal of the mesh. However, it remains unclear in which cases mesh removal is warranted. Our research focused on the pathological changes at the sacral fixation point of the mesh. We sought to evaluate the pathological alterations of the sacral mesh removed through an innovative approach of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES). Methods This retrospective study included nine patients who underwent mesh removal surgery at the Yokosuka Urogynecology and Urology Clinic in 2023. Extraction surgery was performed using vNOTES with the GelPoint Access Platform (Applied Medical JAPAN HEADQUARTERS, Tokyo, Japan). Non-ablative Erbium YAG and Neodymium YAG lasers (RenovaLase, SP Dynamis; Fotona d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia) were utilized for persistent stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, vaginal erosion, and bleeding after surgery. Patients were categorized based on mesh fixation conditions, including unintended mesh overlap (Group I), excessive traction (Group II), and signs of mesh aging (Group III). This categorization helped to understand the distinct pathological outcomes associated with each condition. Results Pathological findings from the mesh removed via vNOTES varied significantly across the groups. In Group I, characteristic large vacuole formation and accumulation of atypical giant cells were observed, attributed to mesh overlap. Group II presented with vacuole formation, fiber degradation, and tissue destruction as a result of excessive mesh traction. In Group III, the aging of the mesh was marked by cracks in the surrounding tissues and granuloma formation. These detailed observations provide crucial insights into the underlying causes of mesh-related pain and other complications, highlighting the complexity of bodily responses to mesh implants. Conclusion This study demonstrated the effectiveness of vNOTES for polypropylene mesh removal in patients with post-LSC complications, resulting in significant pain reduction. Pathological analysis revealed that mesh-related issues stem from the surgical techniques, mesh properties, and long-term bodily reactions. These findings provide valuable insights for improving mesh design and POP treatment strategies. Despite the technical challenges, vNOTES is recommended for mesh removal in patients with pain. Additionally, the combination of UEL, VEL, targeted laser irradiation, AEL, and Nd:YAG laser treatments showed promising results in managing post-mesh removal complications such as stress urinary incontinence, vaginal erosion, bleeding, and fecal incontinence, offering hope for improved patient outcomes.

A cost-effective model for training in Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy

BACKGROUND

The number of robotically assisted sacrocolpopexy procedures are increasing; therefore, experienced clinicians are needed. Simulation-based cadaver models are challenging in aspects of cost and availability. Therefore, we need to look at alternative and more cost-effective models.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this video was to design a new surgical model for the training of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy, which is affordable and accessible.

METHODS

We used a whole chicken model to simulate the female pelvic floor. We used Medtronic's Hugo™ RAS system as the robotic console in that procedure. A vaginal cuff was prepared from the proventriculus (stomach), and a Y shaped mesh was secured to the ischium to simulate the sacrocolpopexy procedure.

CONCLUSION

This model is easily constructed and in our view is cost-effective. We have demonstrated a new valuable education tool that can serve as a practical simulation model to teach the sacrocolpopexy procedure and to improve trainees' skills. A larger cohort study size is essential to demonstrate the learning curve among young trainees using this simulation model.

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Sacrocolpopexy was traditionally performed for post-hysterectomy prolapse or during concurrent hysterectomy. Sacrocolpopexy outcome with uterine preservation is poorly investigated. This study compared outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared data of patients with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with uterine preservation with the data of controls who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy. We analyzed composite failure in uterine preservation versus concurrent supracervical hysterectomy (primary objective) and evaluated factors associated with the primary outcome of composite failure after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with preservation or supracervical hysterectomy (secondary objective). Composite failure was defined as subjective bulge symptoms, reoperation, or anatomical prolapse. Cox models indicated time to composite failure as an endpoint.

RESULTS

Of 274 patients, 232 underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy and 42 underwent laparoscopic uterine preservation. After propensity score matching (ratio: 2, for the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy group), 56 patients (24.1%) were in the supracervical hysterectomy group and 28 (66.7%) in the uterine preservation group. All patients underwent 24 months of follow-up. The composite failure rates were 10.7% for supracervical hysterectomy and 3.6% for preservation (p=0.87). The mean estimated blood loss was 10 ml (preservation, 10.0 ml [5.0-10.0] versus supracervical hysterectomy, 10.0 ml [10.0-15.0]; p=0.007). In the Cox proportional hazards model, higher preoperative body mass index and the point Ba increased composite failure risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Although not statistically significant, composite failure in the two techniques is likely clinically meaningful.

Anatomy of the internal iliac vein around the sacral promontory based on CT three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The area around the sacral promontory (SP) is the targeted location of various pelvic operations. We examined the internal iliac vein (IIV) configurations around the SP by computed tomography angiography (CTA) three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction to describe its anatomy and provide accurate anatomical parameters for relevant operations to reduce intraoperative vascular injury.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 2078 CTA 3D model datasets from Nanfang Hospital patients examined for gynecological diseases from December 2009 to October 2020. The IIVs of the above cases were divided into standard and variant IIVs, and variant IIVs were subdivided into different subtypes. To compare the size of the avascular area around the SP between standard and variant IIVs, we selected the two subtypes with the highest variation rate for comparison with the standard IIV type.

RESULTS

The most common types of variant IIVs were 5a (5.15%) and 3a (5.05%). The results showed larger values in the standard group than in the 3a and 5a groups for the confluence of common iliac vein (CCIV) height (37.73±12.05 vs. 28.93±10.17 vs. 27.27±7.58 mm, P < 0.05), distance between the iliac vessels (49.47±9.47 mm vs. 37.08±9.36 vs. 37.73±8.94 mm, P < 0.05), and SP exposure width (44.94±6.39 mm vs. 36.83±8.29 vs. 36.93±7.91, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Variant IIVs may increase the risk of surgery by reducing the avascular area compared with standard IIVs. Therefore, when operating around the SP, special attention should be given to variant IIVs and avoiding vascular injury.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy mesh excision step-by-step

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to demonstrate the surgical procedure of laparoscopic mesh removal after sacrocolpopexy to aid clinicians facing mesh complications.

METHODS

Video footage shows the laparoscopic management of mesh failure and mesh erosion after sacrocolpopexy with narrated video sequences of two patients.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy represents the gold standard in advanced prolapse repair. Mesh complications occur infrequently but infections, failure of prolapse repair and mesh erosions necessitate mesh removal and repeat sacrocolpopexy if applicable. The video deals with two women referred to our tertiary referral urogynecology unit in the University Women's Hospital of Bern, Switzerland, after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexies that were carried out in remote hospitals. Both patients were asymptomatic more than 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete mesh removal after sacrocolpopexy and repeat prolapse surgery can be challenging but is feasible and is aimed at improving patients' complaints and symptoms.

Anatomic Variation of Sacral Mesh Attachment During Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy

IMPORTANCE

Although anatomic level of mesh attachment to the sacrum varied during minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with a large proportion above S1, this was not associated with pelvic organ prolapse recurrence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the anatomic level of sacral mesh attachment and its association with prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.

STUDY DESIGN

This study included a retrospective cohort of women who underwent minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with subsequent abdominal and pelvic imaging (magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography) between 2010 and 2019 at a single academic institution. Anatomic level of attachment was determined by a radiologist. Prolapse recurrence was defined as a composite of self-reported bulge symptoms, any prolapse measure beyond the hymen, and any retreatment with pessary or surgery. χ 2 Tests were used for comparative outcomes.

RESULTS

Analyses included 212 women. The mean ± SD age was 58.8 ± 9.9 years, the majority have preoperative stage III/IV prolapse (81.1%), and the median follow-up was 269 days (interquartile range, 57-825 days). Mesh was attached using titanium tacks (n = 136 [64.2%]) and suture (n = 76 [35.8%]) at the level of the L5-S1 intervertebral space (n = 113 [53.3%]) or overlying S1 (n = 89 [42.0%]).The surgical approach was significantly associated with attachment location with a greater proportion of laparoscopy cases demonstrating mesh attachment above S1 (85 [62.5%] vs robotically, 30 [39.5%]; P < 0.01). Dichotomized level of attachment was not associated with composite prolapse recurrence (above S1, n = 18 [22.2%] vs below S1, n = 24 [24.7%]; P = 0.69) or any compartment recurrence ( P ≥ 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh was primarily attached to the anterior longitudinal ligament at the level of the L5-S1 intervertebral space or S1. Level of mesh attachment was not associated with composite prolapse recurrence.

Robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy vs robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in women with primary advanced apical prolapse: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the anatomic and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy (RASH) against robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) for the treatment of primary advanced apical prolapse.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all robot-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgeries for primary advanced apical prolapse (stage ≥II) between January 2011 and May 2021 at an academic tertiary hospital. Surgical outcomes and pelvic organ function were evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative (POP-Q) stage and validated questionnaires (POPDI-6) during preoperative and postoperative 12-month follow-up evaluations. All data were obtained from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 2368 women underwent surgery for apical prolapse repair, and 18 women underwent either RASH (n = 11) or RASC (n = 7). Compared to the RASC group, the RASH group was significantly younger, premenopausal, and less parous. Preoperative prolapse stage, operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospitalization length was comparable between the groups. No intraoperative complications were observed. All women had a median follow-up duration of 24 months (range: 12-108 months). During the 12-month follow-up period, women in the RASH group reported higher satisfaction with the surgery than those in the RASC group (100% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.137). The mesh exposure rate was significantly higher in the RASC group (3/7, 42.9%) than in the RASH group (0/11, 0%) ( p = 0.043), which was found at 12 to 36 months postoperatively and was successfully managed with vaginal estrogen cream. In the RASH group, one woman required reoperation with anterior colporrhaphy for recurrent anterior prolapse at 60 months postoperatively. The apical success rate was 100% at one year postoperatively, without apical recurrence in either group during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

RASH represents an effective and feasible option for the surgical treatment of advanced primary apical prolapse in women who desire uterine preservation and have a significantly lower risk of mesh erosion than RASC.

Complications of Mesh Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy: Imaging Review

Sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy are commonly used surgical options for treatment of patients with pelvic organ and rectal prolapse, respectively. These procedures involve surgical fixation of the vaginal vault or the rectum to the sacral promontory with mesh material and can be performed independently of each other or in a combined fashion and by using an open abdominal approach or laparoscopy with or without robotic assistance. Radiologists can be particularly helpful in cases where patients' surgical histories are unclear by identifying normal sacrocolpopexy or rectopexy mesh material and any associated complications. Acute complications such as bleeding or urinary tract injury or stricture are generally evaluated with CT. More chronic complications such as mesh extrusion or exposure with or without fistulization to surrounding structures are generally evaluated with MRI. Other complications can have a variable time of onset after surgery. Patients with suspected bowel obstruction are generally evaluated with CT. Those with suspected infection, abscess formation, and discitis or osteomyelitis may be evaluated with MRI, although CT evaluation may be appropriate in certain scenarios. The authors review the sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy surgical techniques, discuss appropriate imaging protocols for evaluation of patients with suspected complications, and illustrate the normal appearance and common complications of these procedures. ^© RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Laparoscopic posterior vaginal plication plus sacral colpopexy for severe posterior vaginal prolapse: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

A randomized clinical trial proposing a new laparoscopic prosthetic and fascial approach to severe posterior vaginal prolapse. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the objective and subjective outcomes of our laparoscopic posterior plication (LPP) combined to "two-mesh" sacral colpopexy (laparoscopic sacral colpopexy [LSC]) in severe posterior vaginal prolapse, with a 1-year follow-up. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the safety of this surgical procedure.

METHODS

This is single-center prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial. A total of 130 consecutive patients with anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) (POP-Q stage ≥II) and severe posterior vaginal prolapse (posterior POP-Q stage ≥III) were prospectively assessed for inclusion into the study from November 2018 to January 2020. Patients underwent "two-meshes" LSC and were randomized in Group A (LSC plus LPP) and Group A (LSC alone). Of the 130 included subjects, 8 were excluded, not meeting inclusion criteria. Cure rate was evaluated objectively, using POP-Q study, and subjectively using PGI-I, POPDI-6, and FSDS questionnaires. Complications were assessed intra-, peri-, and postoperatively. Twelve-month follow-ups were analyzed for the study.

RESULTS

We found in LSC plus LPP Group a significant improvement of Ap and genital hiatus POP-Q points. Our subjective study showed, at 12 months, a statistical difference in PGI-I successful outcomes rate in favor of LPP. Also the FSDS resulted significantly much more improved in Group A. We observed no statistical differences in terms of postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our LPP approach to LSC could be considered an effective and safe technique to POP patients with severe posterior prolapse.

Pelvic pain is a common prolapse symptom and improvement after ventral mesh rectopexy is more frequent than deterioration or de novo pain

AIM

The aim of this work was to assess the relationship between pelvic pain and rectal prolapse both before prolapse surgery and in the long term after ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR).

METHOD

Patients undergoing VMR between 2004 and 2017 were contacted. Outcomes including the severity of pelvic pain were recorded using a numeric rating scale.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seventy eight of the 749 patients (64%) were successfully contacted. Of these, 39% reported pre-existing pelvic pain prior to VMR (group A) and 61% were pain free (group B). The median follow-up time was 8.0 years (interquartile range 5.0-10.0 years). Symptoms of obstructed defaecation were significantly more common (p = 0.002) in group A (91/187, 49%) than in group B (101/291, 35%). In contrast, faecal incontinence was more common (p = 0.007) in group B (75/291, 26%) than in group A (29/187, 15%). In group A, 76% showed improvement in pelvic pain after VMR: 61% were pain free and 39% had partial improvement in their pre-existing pelvic pain. Patients with persistent pelvic pain were younger (p = 0.01) and more likely to have revisional surgery after VMR (p = 0.0003), but there was no relation to the indication for surgery (p = 0.59). In group B, 15% reported de novo pelvic pain after VMR, and this was more common in women under 50 years old (p = 0.001), when obstructed defaecation was the indication (p = 0.03), in mesh erosion (p = <0.05) and when associated with revisional surgery (p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Pelvic pain is common (39%) in patients undergoing prolapse surgery, and VMR improves this pain in most patients (76%). However, a significant number of patients fail to improve (12%), experience worsening of pain (12%) or develop de novo pelvic pain (15%).

Medium-term risk of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse within 2-year follow-up after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Objective

The present study was performed to determine the risk of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) within 2 years after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) in patients with uterovaginal prolapse.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective comparative study was performed in a population of 204 patients over a 2-year follow-up period following LSC with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation at a single urological clinic between 2015 and 2019. The primary outcome was surgical failure following LSC in cases of POP, focusing on failures occurring before the 2^ndyear of follow-up. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the odds ratios (ORs) for surgical failure.

Results

The primary outcome, surgical failure in cases of POP, occurred 2 years after the initial surgery in 19 of the 204 patients (9.3%) (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.7% - 14.2%). Surgical failure was most common in the anterior compartment (n = 10, 4.9%), and further surgery was performed in seven of the patients with surgical failure (3.4%). The poor primary outcome was predicted by lysis of adhesions (OR, 7.5, 95% CI, 1.6-33.8, P = 0.008) and preoperative POP stage IV (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8, P = 0.03) on multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Conclusion

The overall rate of surgical failure following LSC in our cohort was 9.3% over the 2-year follow-up period after surgery, and preoperative prolapse stage IV was associated with a higher risk of recurrence.

Outcomes of sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy with mesh placement targeted to affected compartment

OBJECTIVE

No recommendation regarding the number of meshes to be implanted in laparoscopic genital prolapse surgery exists. Is it necessary to implant a mesh into a compartment that is not affected to prevent its prolapse in the follow-up? Our objective was to compare the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy according to compartments where mesh was implanted.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study of 328 patients after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at our centre in 7/2005 - 3/2021. 294 patients with perioperative data and POP-Q and/or prolapse symptoms in mean follow-up of 42.8 months was available for the outcome analysis. Surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond hymen, subjective recurrence or retreatment. The women were divided into four groups depending on compartments, where the mesh was implanted. Group A - anterior, group P - posterior, Group AP - compound of patients with anterior or posterior single arm mesh placement and (B), with anterior and posterior arm placement. Groups AP and B were compared for feasibility of single compartment mesh implantation. Comparison of groups A and P allowed assessment of non-inferiority of single anterior vs. posterior compartment placement. The data were compared using Wilcoxon Two Sample test, Chi-square test or Fisheŕs Exact test, p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A single compartment mesh implantation was associated with shorter operating time and hospital stay and comparable incidence of complications. A statistically significant difference in all POP-Q points in favour of group B was observed, however, with comparable rate of prolapse beyond hymen(6.3%AP vs. 7.8%B). Similar frequency of surgical failure (17.5%AP vs. 13.8%B) and incidence of de novo pelvic floor disorders or pain was observed. Comparison of groups A and P showed higher suspension of point C in group P(-2.6 vs. -4.0, p < 0.05) with no difference in points Ba, Bp, surgical failure rate and de novo pelvic floor disorders.

CONCLUSION

Implantation of a single sheet of mesh was not associated with inferior outcome to implantation of mesh to both compartments. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a single mesh arm placed into the affected compartment along with apical suspension does not induce a de novo prolapse in unoperated compartment.

The Future in Standards of Care for Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery to Improve Training and Education

Standards of care offer doctors and patients the confidence that an established quality, evidence-based, care is provided, and represent a tool for optimal responding to the population’s needs. It is expected that they will increasingly express a multimodal relationship with gynecologic laparoscopy. Laparoscopy is, now, a standard procedure in operative gynecology, standards are embedded in many laparoscopic procedures, standardization of the skills/competency assessment has been progressively developed, and the proof of competency in laparoscopy may become a standard of care. A continuous development of surgical education includes standard equipment (that may bring value for future advance), standardized training, testing (and performance) assessment, educational process and outcome monitoring/evaluation, patients’ care, and protection, etc. Standards of care and training have a reciprocally sustaining relationship, as training is an essential component of standards of care while care is provided at higher standards after a structured training and as credentialing/certification reunites the two. It is envisaged that through development and implementation, the European wide standards of care in laparoscopic surgery (in close harmonization with personalized medicine) would lead to effective delivery of better clinical services and provide excellent training and education.

Laparoscopic synthetic mesh explantation after sacrohysteropexy

INTRODUCTION

In this video, we present a case of rectal and bladder injury, which occurred during laparoscopic mesh removal following sacrohysteropexy treated 6 months later with a laparoscopic pectopexy.

METHODS

We present the case of a 66-year-old woman with a prolapse recurrence after sacrohysteropexy. During the laparoscopic explantation of the mesh, we detected a fixation of the mesh to the bladder and the rectum rather than a fixation to the vaginal walls. Consequently, bladder and rectal injuries occurred during the dissection and were diagnosed and repaired immediately. Due to bowel injury, the treatment of the prolapse was postponed. Six months later, a laparoscopic pectopexy was performed to avoid complications during the repeated dissection of the promontory. The postoperative recovery after the pectopexy was uncomplicated with no short-term prolapse recurrence or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy appears to be an efficient approach to mesh explantation. Futhermore, laparoscopic pectopexy seems to be a good approach to secondary prolapse reconstruction after sacrohysteropexy mesh explantation avoiding complications during repeated dissection of the promontory.

Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years.

Results

89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 ± 7.46 vs 41.81 ± 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 ± 0.90 vs 3.74 ± 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 ± 0.75 vs 7.21 ± 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (− 6.83 ± 0.54 vs − 6.39 ± 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups.

Conclusion

TS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse.

Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered)

Effect of Age on Complications Rate and Surgical Outcomes in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Sacrocolpopexy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy/sacrocolpopexy in different groups of age.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively (starting from 1 month after surgery, and then annually).

SETTING

The department of functional pelvic surgery & oncology a tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

All patients who underwent laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy/sacrocolpopexy, between July 2005 and December 2019 INTERVENTIONS: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy/sacrocolpopexy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The study population was divided into three groups, according to age at time of surgery: group 1- < 65, group 2- between 65-75, and group 3- > 75. The primary outcome was the rate of perioperative complications. The secondary outcome was the comparison of long-term results between the groups. Three hundred and thirty patients were included: 183 in group 1 (mean age 53.4±8.2), 92 patients in group 2 (mean age 69.2±2.9), and 55 patients in group 3 (mean age 79.3±.5). The overall perioperative complications rate (up to 30 days after surgery) was 5.7%. No differences between the groups in operative details and rates of perioperative complications were observed. During follow up period, 37 patients (11.2%) presented with prolapse recurrence (objective and/or subjective), the rates of prolapse recurrence, as well as long-term complications, were similar between the groups. Similarly, the groups did not differ in postoperative functional results except for postoperative stress urinary incontinence. A surgery for stress urinary incontinence was more common among patients in group 3 (group 1- 13.4%, group 2- 11.9%, group 3- 31.3%, p=.008).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy/sacrocolpopexy is associated with low rates of perioperative and long- term complications. We did not find a difference in rates of complications and/ or long-term outcomes, between different age groups.

Medium term anatomical and functional outcomes following modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We evaluated the anatomical and functional outcomes following modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) utilizing deep dissection of the vaginal walls and distal mesh fixation at the anterior and posterior compartments. We hypothesized that anatomical and functional outcomes improve after this modified LSC technique.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all women (n = 240) who underwent LSC for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) from January to December 2017 in a tertiary center. POP-Q staging, validated questionnaires (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form [ICIQ-SF] and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-Short Form), and uroflowmetry were used to evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using McNemar test and repeated measures analysis of variance with Fisher's least significant difference post hoc (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The anatomical success rate is 96%, with a prolapse recurrence rate of 3.8% at 3-year follow-up. Bulge symptoms and anatomical compartments were significantly improved after LSC. Clinically, there were significant improvements after LSC in voiding dysfunction and bowel symptoms. Also, there was a significant increase in stress urinary incontinence and non-significant decrease in mixed urinary incontinence and urge urinary incontinence. ICIQ-SF and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory 8 scores were significantly lower after LSC, signifying improvement in incontinence and bowel symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Our modified LSC technique is safe and effective in restoring level 1 and level 2 supports, without adverse effects on urinary and bowel function. Bladder and bowel symptoms have also been found to keep improving over time.

A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model

Purpose

Many different surgical approaches have been established for the repair of a pelvic organ prolapse. Especially in laparoscopic surgery, it is important to generate easy surgical techniques with similar stability. This study shall simplify the choice of mesh by evaluating three polypropylene meshes regarding their biomechanical properties.

Methods

Biomechanical testing was performed in the porcine model. The meshes are fixated on porcine fresh cadaver cervices after subtotal hysterectomy. The apical part of the mesh is fixated with parallel screw clamps at the testing frame. Forty-one trials were performed overall, subdivided into four subgroups. The groups differ in mesh type and fixation method. Maximum load, displacement at failure and stiffness parameters were evaluated with an Instron 5565^® test frame.

Results

SERATEX^® E11 PA (E11) showed the highest values for maximum load (199 ± 29N), failure displacement (71 ± 12 mm) and stiffness (3.93 ± 0.59 N/mm). There was no significant difference in all three evaluated parameters between SERATEX^® B3 PA (B3) and SERATEX^® SlimSling^® with bilateral fixation (SSB). SERATEX^® SlimSling^® with unilateral fixation (SSU) had the lowest stiffness (0.91 ± 0.19 N/mm) and maximum load (30 ± 2 N) but no significant difference in displacement at failure.

Conclusion

All meshes achieved a good tensile strength, but the results of maximum load show that the E11 is superior to the other meshes. Through a bilateral fixation of SERATEX^® SlimSling^®, a simple operating method is generated without a loss of stability.

Long-term follow up in two cases of pelvic reconstruction using a combined VRAM flap-sacrocolpopexy for severe perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection

Perineal hernia is an infrequent complication of abdominoperineal resection (APR) and, currently, there is no consensus as to the optimal operative technique. Surgical repair can be achieved by either cerclage or the use of mesh or autologous tissue, and it has been reported that the recurrence rate after repair using autologous tissue is 33%. We present two post-APR cases of severe perineal hernia with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) which did not improve after repair using mesh. We regenerated the pelvic floor using a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap and performed a concomitant sacrocolpopexy to fix the POP. Drooping of the perineum and pelvic floor was greatly improved, and the patients have not experienced any recurrence for 6 years. This dual procedure has not been previously mentioned in the literature, and we consider this the first report of its kind.

Advanced Cystocele is a Risk Factor for Surgical Failure Following Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To assess the outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RALSCP) and to identify risk factors for surgical failure and long term complications in patients at high risk for surgical failure.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A university hospital.

PATIENTS

Sixty-seven women with pelvic organ prolapse at high risk for surgical failure.

INTERVENTIONS

RALSCP from November 2012 to July 2020.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Information was collected from the electronic medical records. Pre-operative and post-operative assessment included a urogynecologic history, prolapse staging, cough stress test, and validated quality of life questionnaires. Anatomical success was defined as POP stage less than 2 at last follow-up. Mean follow-up was 24.6 ± 17.9 months. Sixteen women (23.9%) reported bulge symptoms at the latest follow-up; upon POP-Q staging, surgical failure or recurrence was observed in 35 (52.2%) patients. On multiple logistic regression analysis, a pre-operative POP-Q point Ba measurement ≥ 3 cm beyond the hymen was independently related to surgical failure. Late post-operative complications included three (4.5%) cases of post-operative ventral hernia and five (7.5%) cases of mesh erosion, all in patients operated using Ethibond sutures.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical success of RALSCP in POP patients at high risk for surgical failure is worse than previously reported. Advanced pre-operative anterior vaginal wall prolapse is a risk factor for surgical failure. Delayed absorbable sutures for vaginal mesh fixation seem to be safer than multifilament, permanent sutures, in terms of the risk for mesh erosion.

Visualization of implanted mesh in the pelvic reconstructive surgery using an X-ray-detectable thread

PURPOSE

Visualization of the implanted mesh after a pelvic floor repair surgery is important for evaluating mesh-related complications. We made an X-ray-detectable mesh and studied the histocompatibility and toxicity of it.

METHODS

A thin barium sulfate thread was weaved on a traditional polypropylene mesh to make it X-ray detectable. The cytotoxicity of the mesh was tested by the MTT assay on L929 cell line. The histocompatibility and toxicity of mesh were evaluated in rabbits. Meshes were first implanted intraperitoneally. On postoperative day 7, bloods were tested to estimate the acute toxicity of meshes. After 6 months, rabbits were sacrificed and local inflammatory reaction and tissue regeneration at implantation sites were estimated by the HE stain and Masson stain. In addition, CT scans were performed after surgeries to display the location and shape of implanted meshes.

RESULTS

Compared to the polypropylene mesh group, no significant difference was observed in the X-ray-detectable mesh group on both in vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo acute and chronic toxicity. The amounts of extra cellular matrix between two groups did not differ. Through CT scan and 3D remodeling, the barium sulfate thread clearly revealed the position and shape of the X-ray-detectable mesh, whereas the traditional mesh was invisible under CT scan.

CONCLUSION

Adding a thin barium sulfate thread on the polypropylene mesh does not change its histocompatibility or toxicity in rabbit model. The barium sulfate thread can effectively show the location and shape of implanted mesh under CT scan.

Current Role of Hysterectomy in Pelvic Floor Surgery: Time for Reappraisal? A Review of Current Literature and Expert Discussion

Since hysterectomy could be performed with low risk, it has been part of the standard of surgical prolapse therapy for decades. This has not been scrutinized for a long time. In this review, we describe the development of this issue in recent years. The current literature suggests that hysterectomy requires its own indication. The article describes the various options for a uterine-preserving surgical technique and the available data.

Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The choice of whether or not to preserve the uterus in the case of patients with urogenital prolapse who undergo sacral colpopexy is still debated. We compared objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy (LSHP) and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy (LSCP/SCH) in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted at the Urogynecology Department of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS of Rome and at the Diaconesses Croix Saint Simon Hospital of Paris. We collected data of 136 patients; 78 underwent LSHP and 58 underwent LSCP/SCH for pelvic organ prolapse between January 2016 and December 2017.

RESULTS

Patients of the two groups had similar preoperative characteristics. All patients completed 24-month follow-up evaluation. Overall, anatomical cure rate was 84.6% and 87.9% in the LSHP group and LSCP/SCH group, respectively, without statistically significant differences. In particular, in the LSHP group the anatomical success rate was 94.9%, 92.3% and 92.3% for the apical, anterior and posterior vaginal compartment whereas in the LSHP group LSCP/SCH was 100%, 91.4% and 94.8%, respectively. Subjective success rate was 89.7% among patients who underwent LSHP and 93.1% among women who underwent LSCP/SCH (p = 0.494). The median operative time (OT) was significantly shorter in LSHP. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of estimated blood loss, conversion to laparotomy and intra- and postoperative complications. Patients' satisfaction was high in both groups without statistical differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Both laparoscopic procedures are safe and effective in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. LSHP can be offered as an alternative in women who are strongly motivated to preserve the uterus in the absence of abnormal uterine findings.

Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and ventral rectopexy (LVR) with mesh are advocated for surgical treatment of pelvic and rectal prolapse. Our study aims at showing the feasibility of concomitant laparoscopic prolapse repair by comparing perioperative and long-term outcomes of LSH or LSC with and without LVR.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study carried out on 348 women operated on between July 2009 and July 2019. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) LSH only, (2) LSC only, (3) LSH + LVR and (4) LSC + LVR. POP-Q scores and satisfaction questionnaires were recorded at baseline and then annually. Outcomes were defined as subjective failure (vaginal/rectal prolapse symptoms), objective failure (prolapse to/beyond the hymen, full thickness rectal prolapse) or retreatment for prolapse. Complications were collected and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-eight women underwent laparoscopic repair for pelvic and rectal prolapse (219, 44, 66 and 19 in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 (4-174) months. Success rate for both rectal and pelvic prolapse was 90.2%. Recurrence rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.3%, 6.8%, 9.1% and 10.5% for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Significant improvement was noticed in satisfaction questionnaires in all groups. There was no difference in perioperative and late complications.

CONCLUSION

The combined laparoscopic procedure appears to be safe and efficient in treating pelvic and rectal prolapse. Appropriate patient selection and available surgical expertise should determine whether to perform these procedures combined or separately.

Laparoscopic excision and re-attachment of sacrocolpopexy mesh

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Two cases are described and surgical techniques for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy are demonstrated at an academic affiliated hospital in patients with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.

METHODS

A laparoscopic approach was taken for surgical intervention, with excision of prior detached vaginal mesh and re-attachment of new sacrocolpopexy mesh.

RESULTS

Two patients presented with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed surgical treatment. The first case is a 68-year-old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, sacrocolpopexy, and mid-urethral sling performed at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 3 prolapse. Mesh was loosely attached to the cervix. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 1 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. The second case is a 62-year old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post-total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 2 prolapse. The mesh was loosely attached to the vagina. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 0 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. Both patients reported improvement in symptoms and overall quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed initial sacrocolpopexy procedure can be safely accomplished laparoscopically through identification of points of mesh detachment, anatomical landmarks, removal of the prior vaginal portion of the mesh, and attachment of a new surgical mesh to either the sacrum or the sacral portion of the mesh.

Laparoscopic latero-abdominal colposuspension: Description of the technique, advantages and preliminary results

INTRODUCTION

There are currently various fixation or suspension techniques for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Laparoscopic colposacropexy is considered the gold standard. We present the surgical steps of the laparoscopic latero-abdominal colposuspension (LACS) technique and the preliminary results obtained.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with anterior and/or apical compartment symptomatic POP undergoing LACS are included. The Baden-Walker scale, the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire-Short Form (OAB-q SF), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale were used to assess the degree of prolapse, urinary filling and sexual symptoms and the level of satisfaction before and after surgery, respectively. Conventional laparoscopic material and a polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) mesh were used.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were included with a minimum follow-up time of 6months. The mean surgical time was 70.3±23.8min. Anatomic correction of prolapse was seen in all cases. Only one recurrence was detected. High levels of patient satisfaction were achieved.

CONCLUSION

LACS allowed the anatomical reconstruction of the pelvic floor and proved to be a minimally invasive, fast, effective, safe and reproducible technique. More series are needed to evaluate its role against laparoscopic colposacropexy.

Exploration of the safe suture area of the presacral space in sacrocolpopexy by 3-dimensional (3D) models reconstructed from CT

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study, a digital in vivo anatomical study based on patient-specific three-dimensional (3D) models reconstructed from computed tomography (CT) scans, was to clarify the anatomy of the presacral space and suggest a safe area for complication-free graft or mesh fixation.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 182 CT angiography (CTA) datasets from Han Chinese women examined for gynecological diseases from January 2018-June 2020; we used Mimics 21.0 to create 176 3D models of the female presacral space. The distances of pelvic structures from the presacral vessels and ureters were standardized and measured in 3D mode.

RESULTS

The distances from the median sacral artery (MSA) to the bilateral great vessels and bilateral ureters at the sacral promontory (SP) level were similar to the respective distances from the midpoint of the SP (MSP) to those four structures (p > 0.05). At the level of the first transverse line, when the MSA was right of the midline, the MSA was 20.74 ± 3.86 mm from the medial edge of the left first anterior sacral foramen. When the MSA was left of the midline, its average distance from the medial edge of the right first anterior sacral foramen was 20.89 ± 4.92 mm. The SP was 9.71 ± 4.49 mm and 40.39 ± 6.74 mm, respectively, from the first and second sacral transverse veins along the midline.

CONCLUSIONS

To preserve important vasculature, we recommend a 30 × 20-mm (L × W) avascular rectangular-shaped area, 10 mm below the SP and alongside the MSA, for safe graft or mesh attachment during sacrocolpopexy.

A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle® Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: 24-month outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare prolapse recurrence and the incidence of mesh exposure between Restorelle® Y mesh and dual flat mesh.

METHODS

A randomized trial of women undergoing laparoscopic (LSC) or robotic (RSC) sacrocolpopexy for post-hysterectomy vaginal prolapse. Subjects were randomized to either Y mesh or dual flat mesh. Subjects underwent a pelvic examination with POP-Q and evaluation of any mesh exposure, and the PFDI-20 was administered at 6, 12 and 24 months postoperatively. Subjective recurrence was defined by symptomatic vaginal bulge. All subjects underwent pelvic examination with POP-Q at 6, 12 and 24 months. Objective recurrence was defined by descent of the apex > 1/3 into the vaginal canal, anterior or posterior vaginal descent beyond the hymen, or retreatment for prolapse.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were enrolled, and 59 patients were implanted with mesh: 30 Y mesh (17 LSC, 13 RSC) and 29 flat mesh (18 LSC, 11 RSC). There were no differences in patient characteristics between the groups. At 24 months, data were available for 44 (74.5%) patients. There were no mesh exposures for all subjects. PFDI-20 scores improved significantly for all subjects with no differences in mean improvement by mesh configuration. There were no differences in subjective and objective recurrence rates between the groups. Four patients (9.1%) complained of subjective vaginal bulge symptoms while nine (20.5%) patients had an objective recurrence (77.8% [7] examination only and 22.2% [2] reoperation). There were no apical recurrences. Of those patients who had a recurrence on examination only (n = 7), 85.7% (6) were asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

At 24 months, there were no differences in subjective outcomes and prolapse recurrence in patients who underwent sacrocolpopexy with the Restorelle® Y mesh versus dual flat mesh. One in five patients experienced an objective recurrence; however, there were no apical recurrences and the majority were asymptomatic.

Genital Prolapse Surgery: What Options Do We Have in the Age of Mesh Issues?

Here, we describe the current laparoscopic procedures for prolapse surgery and report data based on the application of these procedures. We also evaluate current approaches in vaginal prolapse surgery. Debates concerning the use of meshes have seriously affected vaginal surgery and threaten to influence reconstructive laparoscopic surgery as well. We describe the option of using autologous tissue in combination with the laparoscopic approach. Study data and problematic issues concerning the existing techniques are highlighted, and future options addressed.

A uniaxial force and stiffness model of the vagina during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is the preferred procedure for restoring vaginal vault prolapse. An assistant uses a vaginal manipulator to position and tension the vault such that the surgeon can dissect the bladder, rectum and vault to eventually suture a synthetic mesh used to suspend the vagina to the longitudinal anterior vertebral ligament. Vaginal vault manipulation requires application of high forces for long periods of time.

METHODS

This work quantifies the task by measuring and analyzing the interaction forces and the workspace during vaginal vault manipulation. From the measurements we developed a uniaxial model, expressing the increase in interaction force and stiffness of the vagina. By adapting the model parameters, the difference in interaction force and stiffness between moderate and severe prolapse is predicted.

FINDINGS

For moderate prolapse the average interaction force and stiffness start at 2.56 N and 0.11 N mm^-1 in the tensionfree state, and go up to 20.14 N and 0.53 N mm^-1 after complete insertion of the instrument. For severe degrees of prolapse, tissue interaction is much lower starting at 1.68 N and 0.06 N mm^-1 while staying limited to 12.20 N and 0.30 N mm^-1 at full extension.

INTERPRETATION

Population data shows that the stage of prolapse and total vaginal length increase with age and parity. The interaction force and stiffness of the vagina are correlated with this degree of prolapse. By adapting the model parameters a good estimation of the tissue interaction is found for patients with mild and severe prolapse.

The Austrian Sacrocolpopexy Registry: Surgical Techniques, Perioperative Safety, and Complications

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Sacrocolpopexy (SCP) has become the standard procedure to correct uterovaginal prolapse in women, but techniques and approaches are not standardized. We report the results of the Austrian Sacrocolpopexy Registry, which aimed to collect data on surgical techniques and perioperative outcomes.

DESIGN

The Austrian Urogynecology Working Group initiated a registry to assess surgical variability and perioperative safety of SCP. The study was performed at 14 centers (13 in Austria,1 in Switzerland). Institutional review board approvals were obtained.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

INTERVENTIONS

SCP in the course of routine POP treatment.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Preoperative assessment included demographic data, clinical data on bladder, and bowel functions and POP-Q status. Surgical data included surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, robotic), type of mesh, depth of dissection, nerve sparing techniques, suture materials, uterus or cervix-sparing techniques, peritoneal closure, and concomitant surgeries. A total of 401 patients were recruited into the study. The mean age was 57 years (range: 26-84) and mean body mass index was 34. A total of 137 (34%) patients had undergone previous surgery for prolapse and in 264 cases SCP was the primary procedure. A total of 170 (42%) patients had undergone previous hysterectomy; For patients with uterus, SCP was performed with subtotal (n = 148) or total (n = 3) hysterectomy. A total of 285 (71%) SCPs were done laparoscopically, 102 (25%) robotically and 10 (3%) per laparotomy. The conversion rate from laparoscopy to abdominal surgery was 4.5%. Various meshes and suture materials were used and fixation techniques also varied widely. Four patients underwent reoperation within 30 days (2 trocar herniations, and 1 bowel obstruction, 1 compartment syndrome). One patient died of aortic dissection 7 days after SCP.

CONCLUSIONS

Most SCPs in this registry were performed laparoscopically, but there was considerable variation in surgical techniques. Perioperative morbidity appears modest.

Comparison of absorbable and permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common cause of morbidity and decreased quality of life among women and is treatable by laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Recent data suggest that absorbable sutures are a feasible and appealing option for mesh attachment given a potential decreased risk of complications related to mesh erosion. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of absorbable sutures to permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a randomized, single-blinded, non-inferiority trial comparing late-absorbable sutures (group A) to non-absorbable sutures (group B) for anterior and posterior vaginal mesh fixation during laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy at a single center in Italy. The primary outcome was prolapse correction at 12 months after surgery, defined as the absence of a pelvic organ prolapse leading edge reaching or extending below the level of the hymen and the absence of bulge symptoms. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative parameters, postoperative characteristics, and long-term morbidity. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 16.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients with pelvic organ prolapse were prospectively randomized 1:1 into two groups (A or B). Baseline characteristics and intraoperative parameters including blood loss, operation time, and intraoperative complications were comparable between groups. The success rate was 100% in both groups and no differences in prolapse correction were observed. The rates of de novo urinary incontinence and persistent urinary incontinence were also similar between groups. The rate of mesh erosion at 12 months was 0% in group A and 4% in group B (P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS

Late absorbable sutures are non-inferior to non-absorbable sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy in terms of procedural success. Moreover we did not see any differences in terms of operative parameters, or intraoperative and postoperative characteristics, although the study was not powered to these outcomes.