Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification

  • Vladimir Kalis
  • Zdenek Rusavy
  • Khaled M. IsmailEmail author
IUJ Video


Introduction and hypothesis

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is the preferred contemporary procedure for the surgical management of a significant apical pelvic organ prolapse. In the presence of a uterus it is possible for the patient to have subtotal hysterectomy and cervicopexy, total hysterectomy with colpopexy or uterine conservation and hysteropexy. However, hysteropexy seems to be associated with a higher risk of anterior compartment failure compared with cervicopexy or colpopexy. It is not uncommon for an asymmetrically large anterior compartment defect to co-exist with a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse. In a cervicopexy or colpopexy, this asymmetry can be balanced by creating a de novo vaginal apex from the superior part of the anterior vaginal wall. However in a hysteropexy the attachment of the base of the anterior mesh to the vagina and cervical isthmus limits the ability to do this.


In this video we present a solution where the shape of the posterior mesh is modified to include two horizontal arms that are passed through openings in the broad ligament and attached to the cervical isthmus anteriorly.


This frees the anterior Y-shaped mesh to be fixed to the anterior vaginal wall only and hence provides the required tension to create the de novo apex.


Prior to wide adoption, this technique should be further investigated in the context of robustly designed comparative studies.


Anterior compartment Cystocele Laparoscopy Mesh Prolapse Sacrohysteropexy 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.


Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this video article and any accompanying images.

Supplementary material


(MP4 446899 kb)


  1. 1.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. In: Maher C, editor. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Chichester: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1815–33. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MFR, et al. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19:103–9. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gracia M, Perelló M, Bataller E, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:654–8. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:93–101. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wong V, Guzman Rojas R, Shek KL, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: how low does the mesh go? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:404–8. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Costantini E, Brubaker L, Cervigni M, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based review and recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:60–5. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holt E. US FDA rules manufacturers to stop selling mesh devices. Lancet. 2019;393:1686. Scholar
  9. 9.
    [No authors listed]. Department of error. Lancet. 2019;393:2124. Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity HospitalPilsenCzech Republic
  2. 2.Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in PilsenCharles UniversityPilsenCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations