Prospective International Multicenter Pelvic Floor Study: Short-Term Follow-Up and Clinical Findings for Combined Pectopexy and Native Tissue Repair

Laparoscopic Pectopexy versus Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in the Treatment of Apical Prolapse

OBJECTIVES

To compare the follow-up results of a sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) technique for laparoscopic bilateral fixation of the vagina to the iliopectineal ligament via a PVDF-mesh (laparoscopic pectopexy technique, LP) in terms of cure rate and postoperative complications rate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective study included 160 patients diagnosed with pelvic organ prolapse stage II-IV according to the POP-Q system. Eighty-two patients (51.25%) underwent vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation and seventy-eight patients (48.75%) underwent the laparoscopic pectopexy procedure.

RESULTS

The cure rate was high in both groups, 95.12% of the patients (78 out of 82) in the SSLF group and 93.59% of the patients (73 out of 78) in the LP group were cured post surgery, leading to an overall cure rate of 151 out of 160 patients. Pelvic pain was present in 5.00% of all patients, but was notably more frequent in the SSLF group (7, 8.54%) than in the LP group (1, 1.28%). Dyspareunia occurred in 4.37% of all patients, slightly more frequently in the SSLF group (6, 7.32%) than the LP group (1, 1.28%), but without significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic pectopexy procedure has comparably positive follow-up results with the conventional sacrospinous ligament fixation procedure. Both SSLF and LP are effective in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, with favorable anatomical and subjective results, a high cure rate and low rates of serious postoperative complications.

Laparoscopic pectopexy with native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse

PURPOSE

The use of mesh for vaginal repair is currently problematic; consequently, there is increased interest in native tissue repair. Combining native tissue repair with sufficient mesh-applied apical repair might provide effective treatment. We describe the study focusing on the combination of pectopexy and native tissue repair.

METHODS

Between April 2020 and November 2021, 49 patients with symptomatic stage III or IV were treated with laparoscopic pectopexy combined with native tissue repair. The mesh was solely used for apical repair. All other clinically relevant defects were treated with native tissue repair. The perioperative parameters including surgical time, blood loss, hospital stay, and complications were recorded. The anatomical cure rate was evaluated according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Questionnaire (POP-Q) assessment. Validated questionnaires of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) were recorded to evaluate the symptom severity and quality of life.

RESULTS

The mean duration of follow-up was 15 months. All domains of POP-Q, PFDI-20, and PFIQ-7 scores improved significantly after surgery. No major complications, mesh exposure, or mesh complication occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The overall repair concept of laparoscopic pectopexy as the core, assisted by vaginal natural tissue repair for severe pelvic organ prolapse can achieve satisfactory clinical results and improve patient satisfaction.

Perioperative and Long-Term Anatomical and Subjective Outcomes of Laparoscopic Pectopexy and Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension for POP-Q Stages II-IV Apical Prolapse

The aim of this paper was to analyze perioperative and long-term outcomes in 114 women undergoing surgery for POP-Q ≥ 2 apical prolapse: sacrospinous ligament colpo/hysteropexy (SSLF/SSHP)—61; laparoscopic pectopexy (LP)—53. Validated questionnaires (PGI-I, ISI, #35 EPIQ, PFIQ-7, PFDI-20) were completed at baseline and follow-up. POP-Q stages II, III and IV were diagnosed in 1 (0.9%), 84 (73.7%) and 29 (25.4%) patients, respectively. Mean operative time and hospital stay were 151.8 ± 36.2 min/2.6 ± 1.1 days for LP and 69 ± 20.4 min (p < 0.001)/2.7 ± 1.0 days for SSLF. Severe intraoperative complications occurred in two (1.8%) patients. Mean follow-up was 26.9 ± 12 and 37.3 ± 17.5 months for LP and SSLF, respectively. At follow-up, significant improvement for all POP-Q points was observed in both groups (p < 0.001). Shortening of total vaginal length was found in both groups, but predominantly in SSLF patients (p = 0.01). The sensation of vaginal bulge (EPIQ) was reduced, and total PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores improved (p < 0.04) in both groups. Subjective success was reported by 40 (75.5%) LP and 44 (72.1%) SSLF patients. ISI detected no deterioration in urinary incontinence. PGI-I, PFDI-20, #35 EPIQ, PFIQ-7 and ISI did not differ between the groups. In conclusion both, SSLF and LP for apical prolapse generate good anatomical and subjective outcomes, with protective effect on the anterior compartment observed for LP.

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.