Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction and hypothesis Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy offers a uterine-sparing alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, although randomised comparative data are lacking. This study was aimed at comparing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Methods A randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse was performed, with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. The primary outcome was reoperation for apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported mesh complications, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification, Patient Global Impression of Improvement in prolapse symptoms and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms, Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) and PISQ-12 questionnaires. Results A total of 101 women were randomised and 62 women attended for follow-up at a mean of 100 months postoperatively (range 84–119 months). None reported a mesh-associated complication. The risk of reoperation for apical prolapse was 17.2% following vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and 6.1% following laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH; relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.07–1.68, p = 0.17). Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was associated with a statistically significantly higher apical suspension (POP-Q point C −5 vs −4.25, p = 0.02) and longer total vaginal length (9 cm vs 6 cm, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the change in ICIQ-VS scores between the two groups (ICIQ-VS change −22 vs −25, p = 0.59). Conclusion Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension have comparable reoperation rates and subjective outcomes. Potential advantages of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy include a lower risk of apical reoperation, greater apical support and increased total vaginal length.

Laparoscopic pectopexy: the learning curve and comparison with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Introduction and hypothesis In addition to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS), laparoscopic pectopexy (LP) is a novel surgical method for correcting apical prolapse. The descended cervix or vaginal vault is suspended with a synthetic mesh by fixing the bilateral mesh ends to the pectineal ligaments. This study was aimed at developing a learning curve for LP and to compare it with results with LS. Methods We started laparoscopic/robotic pectopexy in our department in August 2019. This retrospective study included the initial 18 consecutive women with apical prolapse receiving LP and another group undergoing LS (21 cases) performed by the same surgeon. The medical and video records were reviewed. Results The age was older in the LP group than in the LS group (65.2 vs 53.1 years). The operation time of LP group was significantly shorter than that of the LS group (182.9 ± 27.2 vs 256.2 ± 45.5 min, p < 0.001). The turning point of the LP learning curve was observed at the 12th case. No major complications such as bladder, ureteral, bowel injury or uncontrolled bleeding occurred in either group. Postoperative low back pain and defecation symptoms occurred exclusively in the LS group. During the follow-up period (mean 7.2 months in LP, 16.2 months in LS), none of the cases had recurrent apical prolapse. Conclusions Laparoscopic pectopexy is a feasible surgical method for apical prolapse, with a shorter operation time and less postoperative discomfort than LS. LP may overcome the steep learning curve of LS because the surgical field of LP is limited to the anterior pelvis and avoids encountering the critical organs.

Mesh-less laparoscopic treatment of apical prolapse

The pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common gynaecological problem, affecting nearly 50% of women over 40. The sacrocolpopexy using a synthetic mesh is now considered the “gold standard” for management of women with apical prolapse. In April 2019 the FDA placed a ban on the production of transvaginal meshes for prolapse due to late complications. The meshes for abdominal repair of POP are still used, but in future they may also be prohibited. The goal of the following video is to present a mesh-less modification of two techniques used for apical organ prolapse, the sacrocolpopexy and the pectopexy.

Short-term outcomes of anterior approach sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical vaginal prolapse - A retrospective study

Introduction: Vaginal sacrospinous fixation and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSF/SSHP) are highly effective procedures for apical compartment prolapse. The established technique is the posterior vaginal approach. The alternative anterior approach through an anterior vaginal incision, although occasionally mentioned in the literature, is less well established. However, this approach is a more appropriate route if posterior vaginal surgery is not indicated. The aim of this paper is to review surgical outcomes of anterior approach in our centre and to compare outcomes of SSF vs SSHP. Methods: Retrospective case note review of 60 patients who underwent anterior SSF for prolapse between 2009-2017 was performed. Preoperative and postoperative symptoms and findings were recorded. Anterior SSF involved an anterior vaginal incision and paravaginal access to the ligament for dissection and fixation to either the cervix or vault. Results: SSF was performed in 39 patients, out of which 8 underwent vaginal hysterectomy concomitantly. SSHP for uterine prolapse was performed in 21 patients. There were no cases of recurrent apical prolapse in the cohort at mean follow-up of 1 year. No intra-operative visceral injuries were observed. Recurrence of anterior wall prolapse and postoperative voiding dysfunction was observed in 8.3% and short-term buttock pain in 6.6% of patients. Conclusion: Anterior approach SSF and SSHP is a safe and effective technique for apical prolapse and is the recommended route when posterior vaginal surgery is not required.