Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after transvaginal mesh surgery

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse

OBJECTIVES

We set out to assess long-term anatomical and functional outcomes in women after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

All women with a history of pelvic organ prolapse surgery operated between 2005 and 2022 were enrolled in this retrospective observational study. The indication for recurrent POP surgery was a symptomatic stage II and above pelvic organ prolapse. The data from objective urogynecologic examination and subjective patient assessment using validated questionnaires were collected. The last follow-up information was evaluated. The outcomes were compared with preoperative state using Student t-test and Wilcoxon test, p<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

39 women were enrolled in the study. The rate of perioperative complications was very low; no significant hemorrhage, ureteral damage or conversion to laparotomy were observed. The mean follow-up was 40 ± 26.8 months. The postoperative course was not complicated by bowel incarceration, pelvic infection or mesh exposure. We observed a statistically significant elevation of all POP-Q points and decrease in all mean scores of PFDI, PFIQ, Wexner and VAS prolapse bother postoperatively. Improvement in stress urinary incontinence, anal incontinence and constipation was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse is a safe and effective surgery regardless of the type of the original repair performed. It provides good subjective and anatomical outcomes with a lasting effect on the quality of life in a long-term follow-up.

Redo laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for POP recurrence: Is it the right call?

OBJECTIVES

As Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) has proven to be the gold-standard for treating Pelvic Organ Prolapse, management of recurrence after its failure is a challenge with upcoming interest. In these patients, repeat LSCP might represent a suitable surgical choice.

STUDY DESIGN

We present a retrospective observational study analysing safety, feasibility and outcomes of Redo LSCP. Data of 20 patients with POP recurrence who underwent previous sacrocolpopexy were recruited, and all successfully underwent a repeat LSCP.

RESULTS

Median 24-months follow-up demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of objective and subjective outcome. No intra and postoperative complications were noted. Anatomical cure rate was 95%. Subjective cure rate was 100%, with a statistically significant POP symptoms resolution and improvement of voiding and storage symptoms. We compared perioperative data and outcome of Redo patients to a population who underwent LSCP for a first-time diagnosed POP. The findings demonstrated that surgery did not differ from standard procedure in terms of intra/postoperative complications, hospital stay, blood loss, except for operative time.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive Redo LSCP appears to be a safe and effective procedure in treating recurrent and symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Our series shows low recurrence rates, comparable to data from patients who underwent their primary surgery for POP.

Transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh: experiences of 93 cases

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

To demonstrate the outcomes of pelvic reconstruction using Y-shaped mesh in patients with multiple-compartment pelvic organ prolapse via transvaginal single-port laparoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series study. Patients diagnosed with severe multiple-compartment prolapse were enrolled between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients underwent transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh. Baseline data and perioperative results were collected. Patients were followed up with the POP-Q score, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire short form (PISQ-12). T-test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Operations were successful in all 93 patients without conversion or serious complications. Mean operative time was 132.70 ± 28.02 min and estimated blood loss was 110.65 ± 56.31 ml. VAS pain score was 2.91 ± 1.16 and cosmetic score was 9.20 ± 0.60. During 1-33 months of follow-up, no recurrence or mesh exposure was observed. Five patients suffered from de novo SUI, six had constipation, two had dyspareunia, and one had persistent pelvic pain. The pre- and postoperative Aa point was +2.13 ± 1.23 vs. -2.91 ± 0.28 (P < 0.05), C point was 2.63 ± 2.41 vs. -6.86 ± 0.69 (P < 0.05), and Ap point was -0.26 ± 1.79 vs. -2.97 ± 0.16 (P < 0.05). The PFDI-20 score was 76.81 ± 32.06 vs. 18.18 ± 20.25 (P < 0.05), while the PISQ-12 score was 34.30 ± 4.17 vs. 37.20 ± 2.60 (P < 0.05), which suggested significant improvements in both physical prolapse and quality of life after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh is a feasible, effective and safe treatment option for severe multiple-compartment prolapse. Patients may benefit from its mild pain level and good cosmetic effect as well as only minor mesh-related complications.