Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse: a retrospective case series report

Laparoscopic Sacrocervicopexy Using Ethibond Suture Graft: A Very Economic Yet Effective Fertility Preserving Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

BACKGROUND

The modern era has witnessed a transition to a phase of uterus-preserving surgeries and so holds true for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgeries as well. Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy has become a preferred surgical modality for moderate to severe degrees of POP in most women of the childbearing age group. With the alarming incidences of mesh erosion, synthetic mesh has almost gone off the market. We advocate a very simple and cost-effective technique of laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy using an Ethibond suture graft.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

It was a pilot prospective observational study over one year. Consecutive consenting women with symptomatic prolapsed uterus Stage-II of the central component of the quantitative POP classification (POP-Q) were recruited. Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy was performed under general anesthesia using the standard protocols, and patients were prospectively followed for six months after surgery. The duration of surgery and hospital stay were noted. Patient satisfaction was rated using a five-point Likert scale. The vaginal length was measured immediately after and six months post-surgery. Sexual function was assessed using the validated female sexual function index (FSFI) scale six months after sacrocervicopexy.

RESULTS

Out of 28 recruited women, the majority were multiparous, highly qualified, and belonged to the middle socio-economic class. Seven patients had co-morbidity in the form of hypertension (17.8%), diabetes (7.1%), and cardiovascular diseases (7.1%). The mean duration of surgery was 105.8±7.2 minutes in the study population. The mean duration of hospital stay was 2.2±0.6 days. No surgical site infection was noted in any of the cases. Most patients rated "very satisfied" experiences following surgery (67.9%). The mean vaginal length after surgery was 7.6±1.2 centimeters. After a follow-up period of six months, the mean vaginal length was 7.4±0.8 centimeters. The mean FSFI score was 30.8±2.4.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy with Ethibond suture graft is a cost-effective and safe surgical technique for POP in resource-limited settings. It also obviates the additional cost of synthetic mesh and the long-term risks of mesh erosion.

Joint Report on Terminology for Surgical Procedures to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are common, but standardization of surgical terms is needed to improve the quality of investigation and clinical care around these procedures. The American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecologic Association convened a joint writing group consisting of 5 designees from each society to standardize terminology around common surgical terms in POP repair including the following: sacrocolpopexy (including sacral colpoperineopexy), sacrocervicopexy, uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament fixation, iliococcygeus fixation, uterine preservation prolapse procedures or hysteropexy (including sacrohysteropexy, uterosacral hysteropexy, sacrospinous hysteropexy, anterior abdominal wall hysteropexy, Manchester procedure), anterior prolapse procedures (including anterior vaginal repair, anterior vaginal repair with graft, and paravaginal repair), posterior prolapse procedures (including posterior vaginal repair, posterior vaginal repair with graft, levator plication, and perineal repair), and obliterative prolapse repairs (including colpocleisis with hysterectomy, colpocleisis without hysterectomy, and colpocleisis of the vaginal vault). Each of these terms is clearly defined in this document including the required steps of the procedure, surgical variations, and recommendations for procedural terminology.

Success rates and outcomes of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy

BACKGROUND

Uterovaginal prolapse is a prevalent gynaecological issue, which can have a negative impact on the quality of life of women. Hysterectomy and vaginal repair are conventional treatments to address apical prolapse; however, women are increasingly requesting uterine-preserving alternatives.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy on symptomatic prolapse from an Australian experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study presents outcomes of 157 patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy at a private practice in South Australia during 2007-2017. Primary outcome is the success rate according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system. Secondary measures included complication rates and patients identified as having Stages III-IV prolapse and their outcomes.

RESULTS

The median age was 58 years (27-86 years), median parity was 2 (0-6), and median body mass index was 26.8 (23-29.9). One hundred and thirty-four women had a laparoscopic hysteropexy and concurrent vaginal prolapse repair and four women had an isolated laparoscopic hysteropexy. The mean pre-operative point C was 0.60. The mean change from pre-operative point C to post-operative point C was 7.6 cm (P < 0.01). Of the 136 patients (98.6%) seen at post-operative 4-6 weeks, all had Stage 0 POP-Q scores. Prolapse recurrence was observed in 22 patients, while 116 patients remained cured at their last follow-up. Prolapse recurrence was associated with anterior vaginal mesh, previous prolapse surgery, pre-operative Stage III-IV disease and number of vaginal deliveries.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy is an effective and safe procedure with a high success rate comparable to available international data.

Laparoscopic Mesh-Less Cervicosacropexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate surgical and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic mesh-less cervicosacropexy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.

METHODS

This single institutional review board-approved prospective cohort study enrolled 46 consecutive, sexually active symptomatic women requiring surgical correction of uterovaginal prolapse, from July 2013 to March 2016. After supracervical laparoscopic hysterectomy, the cervix was suspended to the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacral promontory through a continuous suture with plication and shortening of the right uterosacral ligament. Pelvic organs' function was evaluated through validated questionnaires during preoperative and postoperative follow-up evaluations. The anatomical recurrences of genital prolapse with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative stage 2 or higher, in particular of central compartment (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative score C ≥-1), were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD age was 55.5 ± 10.9 years. Mean ± SD operating time was 97.4 ± 25.6 (range, 60-180) minutes. Mean ± SD hospitalization length was 3.6 ± 0.9 (range, 2-6) days. No intraoperative complications were recorded. Median length of follow-up was 24 (range, 12-38) months. During the follow-up period, the objective success rates for central compartment prolapse and for all compartments were 93.5% and 89.1%, respectively. No woman presented dyspareunia at follow-up. Thirty-nine women (84.8%) reported very high satisfaction related to surgery and 6 (13%) a moderate satisfaction. Overall Female Sexual Function Index, Knowles-Eccersley-Scott Symptom, and Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract scores improved significantly after surgery, except for incontinence score domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic mesh-less cervicosacropexy represents an effective and feasible option for the surgical treatment of uterovaginal prolapse in sexually active women, avoiding postoperative complications due to the mesh use.

Hysteropexy: Evidence and Insights

Uterovaginal prolapse may be treated with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Many patients express interest in uterine-sparing prolapse procedures, for which there are increasing evidence available regarding techniques and outcomes. Uterine-sparing procedures to treat uterovaginal prolapse require a unique set of surgical considerations including uterine abnormalities, possibility of occult malignancy, and future pregnancy. Data, including randomized controlled trials, support the use of sacrospinous hysteropexy. Other prospective trials detailing outcomes following uterosacral hysteropexy, mesh augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy, and sacrohysteropexy are also encouraging.

Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in uterine conservation at the time of surgery for uterovaginal prolapse, but limited data compare different types of hysteropexy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare 1-year efficacy and safety of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and vaginal mesh hysteropexy.

STUDY DESIGN

This multicenter, prospective parallel cohort study compared laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy to vaginal mesh hysteropexy at 8 institutions. We included women ages 35-80 years who desired uterine conservation, were done with childbearing, and were undergoing 1 of the above procedures for stage 2-4 symptomatic anterior/apical uterovaginal prolapse (anterior descent at or beyond the hymen [Aa or Ba ≥ 0] and apical descent at or below the midvagina [C ≥ -TVL/2]). We excluded women with cervical elongation, prior mesh prolapse repair, cervical dysplasia, chronic pelvic pain, uterine abnormalities, and abnormal bleeding. Cure was defined as no prolapse beyond the hymen and cervix above midvagina (anatomic), no vaginal bulge sensation (symptomatic), and no reoperations. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification examination and validated questionnaires were collected at baseline and 12 months including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form, Female Sexual Function Index, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. In all, 72 subjects/group were required to detect 94% vs 75% cure (80% power, 15% dropout). Intention-to-treat analysis was used with logistic regression adjusting for baseline differences.

RESULTS

We performed 74 laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and 76 vaginal mesh hysteropexy procedures from July 2011 through May 2014. Laparoscopic patients were younger (P < .001), had lower parity (P = .006), were more likely premenopausal (P = .008), and had more severe prolapse (P = .02). Laparoscopic procedure (174 vs 64 minutes, P < .0001) and total operating time (239 vs 112 minutes, P < .0001) were longer. There were no differences in blood loss, complications, and hospital stay. One-year outcomes for the available 83% laparoscopic and 80% vaginal hysteropexy patients revealed no differences in anatomic (77% vs 80%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.48; P = .20), symptomatic (90% vs 95%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; P = .22), or composite (72% vs 74%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.58; P = .27) cure. Mesh exposures occurred in 2.7% laparoscopic vs 6.6% vaginal hysteropexy (P = .44). A total of 95% of each group were very much better or much better. Pelvic floor symptom and sexual function scores improved for both groups with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and vaginal mesh hysteropexy had similar 1-year cure rates and high satisfaction.

Does prolapse equal hysterectomy? The role of uterine conservation in women with uterovaginal prolapse

Hysterectomy has historically been a mainstay in the surgical treatment of uterovaginal prolapse, even in cases in which the removal of the uterus is not indicated. However, uterine-sparing procedures have a long history and are now becoming more popular. Whereas research on these operations is underway, hysteropexy for the treatment of prolapse is not as well studied as hysterectomy-based repairs. Compared with hysterectomy and prolapse repair, hysteropexy is associated with a shorter operative time, less blood loss, and a faster return to work. Other advantages include maintenance of fertility, natural timing of menopause, and patient preference. Disadvantages include the lack of long-term prolapse repair outcomes and the need to continue surveillance for gynecological cancers. Although the rate of unanticipated abnormal pathology in this population is low, women who have uterine abnormalities or postmenopausal bleeding are not good candidates for uterine-sparing procedures. The most studied approaches to hysteropexy are the vaginal sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy and the abdominal sacrohysteropexy, which have similar objective and subjective prolapse outcomes compared with hysterectomy and apical suspension. Pregnancy and delivery have been documented after vaginal and abdominal hysteropexy approaches, although very little is known about outcomes following parturition. Uterine-sparing procedures require more research but remain an acceptable option for most patients with uterovaginal prolapse after a balanced and unbiased discussion reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

Uterine sparing surgical methods in pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is defined as the protrusion of pelvic organs to the vagen and is an important health problem in patients of older age. Today, most women with POP prefer uterine sparing surgery due to the changes in lifestyle, beliefs, pregnancy desire, and understanding the role of the uterus and cervix in sexual function. Therefore, the need for newer surgical procedures that involve less invasive surgery, reduced intraoperative and postoperative risks, and a faster healing time in POP surgery have gained importance. Vaginal, abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic methods are defined in uterine preserving surgery but there is not yet a consensus on which of them should be chosen. In choosing the proper technique, the patient's general status, accompanying disease, correct indication, and the surgeon's experience are all important. In our practice we prefer laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy in patients who prefer to preserve their uterus because of the lower costs and high success rates compared with abdominal and robotic techniques.

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.

Management options for women with uterine prolapse interested in uterine preservation

A variety of nonsurgical and surgical treatment options exist for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. While nonsurgical management is often selected as first-line treatment, many women eventually elect to undergo surgical management. Traditionally, prolapse repair often includes concomitant hysterectomy; however, women increasingly desire uterine preservation for a myriad of reasons. Multiple surgical procedures have been described to correct apical prolapse while preserving the uterus. Many studies suggest similar anatomic and functional outcomes compared to prolapse procedures with concomitant hysterectomy. Potential benefits include decreased operative time and avoidance of hysterectomy-specific complications, although there are several unique issues to consider if the uterus is retained. Surgeons must provide adequate counseling and preoperative evaluation before proceeding with uterine preservation.

Laparoscopic modified sacral hysteropexy: initial experience with an original surgical approach to uterovaginal prolapse

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility of a modified laparoscopic approach to correct uterovaginal prolapse using cervical cerclage tape to attach the uterine isthmus to the sacral promontory.

DESIGN

Retrospective study (Canadian Task Force classification III).

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

From January 2011 to February 2013, 33 patients underwent laparoscopic modified sacral hysteropexy with use of cervical cerclage tape at West China Second University Hospital. All patients had stage 2 to 4 uterovaginal prolapse according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The outcome was assessed via preoperative and postoperative pelvic examinations, and the surgical results were evaluated. The mean operative time was 90.0 minutes, and blood loss was 80.5 mL. No intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred. At the minimum 6-month follow up, all patients had prolapse of stage I or lower.

CONCLUSIONS

After larger trials are performed to assess the safety and efficacy of this modified laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy, this novel approach might be considered as an alternative treatment option in patients with uterovaginal prolapse.

Efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for apical support of pelvic organ prolapse

Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy appears to be an effective option for sexually active women with pelvic organ prolapse.

Background and Objectives:

To evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for apical support in sexually active patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

Methods:

One-hundred thirty-five women with symptomatic prolapse of the central compartment (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative [POP-Q] stage 2) underwent laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy. The operating physicians used synthetic mesh to attach the anterior endopelvic fascia to the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacral promontory with subtotal hysterectomy. Anterior and posterior colporrhaphy was performed when necessary. The patients returned for follow-up examinations 1 month after surgery and then over subsequent years. On follow-up a physician evaluated each patient for the recurrence of genital prolapse and for recurrent or de novo development of urinary or bowel symptoms. We define “surgical failure” as any grade of recurrent prolapse of stage II or more of the POP-Q test. Patients also gave feedback about their satisfaction with the procedure.

Results:

The mean follow-up period was 33 months. The success rate was 98.4% for the central compartment, 94.2% for the anterior compartment, and 99.2% for the posterior compartment. Postoperatively, the percentage of asymptomatic patients (51.6%) increased significantly (P < .01), and we observed a statistically significant reduction (P < .05) of urinary urge incontinence, recurrent cystitis, pelvic pain, dyspareunia, and discomfort. The present study showed 70.5% of patients stated they were very satisfied with the operation and 18.8% stated high satisfaction.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy is an effective option for sexually active women with pelvic organ prolapse.

Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with transcervical morcellation and sacrocervicopexy: initial experience with a novel surgical approach to uterovaginal prolapse

The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a new laparoscopic technique for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse using a transcervical access port to minimize the laparoscopic incision. From February 2008 through August 2010, symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in 43 patients was evaluated and surgically treated using this novel procedure. Preoperative assessment included pelvic examination, the pelvic organ prolapse quantification scoring system (POP-Q), and complex urodynamic testing with prolapse reduction to evaluate for symptomatic or occult stress urinary incontinence. The surgical procedure consisted of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with transcervical morcellation and laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy with anterior and posterior mesh extension. Concomitant procedures were performed as indicated. All procedures were completed laparoscopically using only 5-mm abdominal port sites, with no intraoperative complications. Patients were followed up postoperatively for pelvic examination and POP-Q at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The median (interquartile range) preoperative POP-Q values for point Aa was 0 (-1.0 to 1.0), and for point C was -1.0 (-3.0 to 2.0). Postoperatively, median points Aa and C were significantly improved at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months (all p < .001). One patient was found to have a mesh/suture exposure from the sacrocervicopexy, which was managed conservatively without surgery. We conclude that laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with transcervical morcellation and laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy is a safe and feasible surgical approach to treatment of uterovaginal prolapse, with excellent anatomic results at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Potential advantages of the procedure include minimizing laparoscopic port site size, decreasing the rate of mesh exposure compared with other published data, and reducing the rate of postoperative cyclic bleeding in premenopausal women by removing the cervical core. Longer follow-up is needed to determine the durability and potential long-term sequelae of the procedure.

Robotic sacrocolpopexy: an observational experience at mayoclinic, USA

Although there are many studies the ongoing debate on the management of posthysterectomy vault prolapse whether it should be abdominal, vaginal, or laparoscopic still continues. However there is no clear consensus. Though the incidence of vaginal vault prolapse is said to range from 0.2 to 45%, the choice of the optimal treatment depends on the surgeon's experience, suitability for surgery, age, symptoms, quality of life impairment, and prolapse grade. Abdominal sacrocopopexy (ASCP) with mesh interposition is the traditional surgical procedure for treating pelvic organ prolapse and has been shown to have one of the highest long-term success rates for vaginal vault prolapse. The laparoscopic approach offers reduced morbidity, shorter hospitalization, and decreased post operative pain. The disadvantages of the laparoscopic approach include longer operating time and need for advanced laparoscopic surgical skills including suturing. Robot-assisted laparoscopic procedure allows the performance of complex laparoscopic maneuvers with less difficulty, and thereby simplifies the complex procedure. The aim is to describe and demonstrate the use and benefit of robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse in obese patients along with mid-urethral sling application.

Robotic/Laparoscopic prolapse repair and the role of hysteropexy: a urology perspective

Approximately 11% of women will undergo a surgical procedure for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or urinary incontinence by age 80 years. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy has been found in multiple studies to have high long-term success rates for repair of severe vault prolapse. Robotic or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy offer similar success to an open approach. This article describes the techniques of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and robotic sacrocolpopexy. The role of hysteropexy for the treatment of POP is also discussed.

[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?

Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

Attitudes to sexuality and the psychological value of reproductive organs have changed in Western countries over the last few decades. Nevertheless, repair of pelvic support defects with concomitant hysterectomy is still considered the standard treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Over the last 10 years, however, interest has been growing in uterus-sparing surgery, which can be divided into vaginal, abdominal, and laparoscopic procedures. The majority of studies on uterus-sparing surgery, with the exception of abdominal techniques, report few cases with short follow-up. Sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most studied vaginal technique for uterus preservation and favorable results have been demonstrated, although the majority of studies are flawed by selection and information bias, short follow-up and lack of adequate control groups. Abdominal and laparoscopic procedures are promising, providing similar functional and anatomical results to hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Consensus is growing that the uterus can be preserved at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery in appropriately selected women who desire it. The results of comparison trials and prospective studies confirm that uterus-sparing surgery is feasible and is associated with similar outcomes to hysterectomy, as well as shorter operating times. Surgeons should be ready to respond to the wishes of female patients who want to preserve vaginal function and the uterus.

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal uterine suspension to anterior abdominal wall bilaterally using synthetic mesh to treat uterovaginal prolapse

Between August 2007 and May 2009, 28 patients with uterovaginal prolapse, stage 2 or greater, and who desired uterine preservation, underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal uterine suspension to the anterior abdominal wall bilaterally using mesh. The primary outcome was recurrence, which was evaluated using point C. Secondary outcomes were effects on quality of life (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory [PFDI-20] and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire [PFIQ-7]) and sexual symptom (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire [PISQ-12]) scores, operative time, blood loss, duration of hospitalization, and adverse events. After surgery, there was significant improvement in all pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) measurements. The POP-Q score for point C was significantly farther from the hymen at 6-months and 1-year follow-up compared with the preoperative value (-7.8 and -8.0 vs 2.6, respectively; p < .001). The objective cure rates at 6 months and 1 year were 96.4% and 94.1%, respectively. There were no major intraoperative or postoperative complications. However, all patients reported postoperative dragging pain at the points of puncture ports where the mesh was fixed to the abdominal wall. The mean visual analog scale decreased from a mean (SD) 3-day score of 2.61 (1.26) to 0 at 1 month follow-up. Baseline PISQ-12 score changed significantly compared with the value at 6 months after operation (28.4 [2.7] vs 29.3 [2.9]; p < .001). The PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores at 6 and 12 months after surgery improved significantly compared with the baseline scores (p < .001). The subjective success rates at 6 months and 1 year were 96.4% and 94.1%. respectively. Laparoscopic extraperitoneal uterine suspension to the anterior abdominal wall using mesh is a simple, safe, and effective procedure for treating uterovaginal prolapse. However, further studies of the long-term efficiency and reliability of this technique are needed to evaluate its value.

Abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

Abdominal correction of pelvic organ prolapse remains a viable option for patients and surgeons. The transition from open procedures to less invasive laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgeries is evident in the literature. This article reviews the surgical options available for pelvic organ prolapse repair and their reported outcomes. Procedures reviewed include apical support (sacral, uterosacral, and others), and abdominal anterior and posterior vaginal wall support. Long-term follow-up and appropriately designed studies will further help direct surgeons in deciding which approach to incorporate into their practice.

Laparoscopic management of incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse

Laparoscopy provides an enticing alternative for incontinence and pelvic floor procedures that would otherwise require a laparotomy or that would be difficult vaginally. Despite some data suggesting lower cure rates with the laparoscopic Burch when compared with the open approach or trans-vaginal tape, the safety and relative efficacy of the laparoscopic procedure support its continued use. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy seems to yield comparable outcomes when compared with the open approach and is associated with a shorter hospitalization. Although laparoscopic paravaginal defect, cystocele, and rectocele repairs are technically feasible and may have a role as a concomitant procedure, a vaginal approach is more appropriate for an isolated operation.

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and myomectomy for uterine prolapse: a case report and review of the literature

Introduction

A large number of hysterectomies are carried out for uterine prolapse, menorrhagia and other symptomatic but benign gynaecological conditions, which has increased interest in new approaches to treat these disorders. These new procedures are less invasive and offer reduced risk and faster recovery.

Case presentation

Sacrohysteropexy can be carried out instead of vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse. It involves using a synthetic mesh to suspend the uterus to the sacrum; this maintains durable anatomic restoration, normal vaginal axis and sexual function. A laparoscopic approach has major advantages over the abdominal route including shorter recovery time and less adhesion formation. We describe a laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in a 55-year-old Caucasian British woman that was technically difficult. An intramural uterine fibroid was encroaching just above the uterosacral ligament making mesh positioning impossible. This was removed and the procedure completed successfully.

Conclusion

Posterior wall fibroid is not a contraindication for laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy. This procedure has increasingly become an effective treatment of uterine prolapse in women who have no indication for hysterectomy.