Uterus-sparing vaginolaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse
- 357 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
Our aim was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of a vaginolaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VLS) technique for treating apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
Materials and methods
This was a prospective interventional case series (design classification: Canadian Task Force II3) performed in the endoscopic unit of a tertiary care referral facility and university hospital. We assessed 15 symptomatic parous women with stage ≥2 apical POP according to the POP Quantification (POP-Q) classification. Interventions comprised posterior colpotomy with mesh fixation to the uterosacral ligaments and the back of the uterus that was further fixed to the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum using a tacker via laparoscopy.
The main outcome was a significant postoperative improvement in prolapse and resultant improvement in quality of life (QoL) after VLS. Six patients required concomitant reconstructive procedures. Mean operative time for the vaginal phase was 8.54 ± 3.10 (7–12) min and 32.36 ± 8.2 (27–41) min. for the laparoscopic phase Mean duration of VLS ranged from 30 to 50 min. At the 6-months follow-up, the procedure was successful in 14 of 15 patients (93.34%); one woman (6.66%) presented with recurrence at a lower stage. Neither mesh complications nor sacral ostitis were encountered. There was significant improvement in vaginal symptoms, sexual well-being, QoL, and clinical staging after the procedure.
By eliminating all forms of intraperitoneal suturing, performing a posterior colpotomy, and the advent of tackers without evidence of sacral ostitis, VLS seems to be a simple, feasible, effective, and fast approach for treating POP.
KeywordsSacrocolpopexy Laparoscopy Apical prolapse
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
(MPG 36676 kb)
(WMV 37493 kb)
- 10.Dällenbach P. To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery. Int J Womens Health 2015; 7: 331–343.Google Scholar
- 14.Campos S, Billone V, Durão M, Beguinot M. BourdelN, Rabischong B, Canis M, Botchorishvili R. Complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: as harmless as they seem? Acta Obstet Ginecol Port. 2016;10(1):21–31.Google Scholar
- 15.Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, van Eijndhoven HW. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised noninferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar