Laparoscopic Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Case Series.

Background: Pelvic static disorders have an important impact on patients' quality of life, constituting a real public health problem, despite the fact that they are not life-threatening. Minimally invasive procedures of pelvic organ prolapse has many advantages, laparoscopic hysteropexy and colpopexy being a standard with real benefits: minimal incisions, reduced postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay and a low recurrence rate. Laparoscopic management of such cases is recommended, but requires teams well trained in minimally invasive surgery. Case presentation: We presented a series of successful cases of two patients with grade III hysterocele, respectively vaginal vault prolapse, who were treated minimally invasively with a lateral laparoscopic hysteropexy, respectively lateral laparoscopic colpopexy. Given the well-known benefits of minimally invasive surgery, we chose laparoscopic surgery because of the smaller surgical impact and faster return to normal life. The surgical procedures were performed successfully, without complications, with rapid recovery, without recurrence. Conclusion: Hysteropexy and laparoscopic colpopexy are safe and effective surgical procedures in selected cases.

Same-day Discharge Following Vaginal Hysterectomy and Native-tissue Apical Repair for Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) has been consistently reported across the benign and gynecologic oncology literature. However, outcomes of SDD in the urogynecology population are sparse. The objectives of this study were to describe the success of SDD following vaginal hysterectomy and native-tissue colpopexy, and to compare the incidence of postoperative adverse events in patients discharged same-day versus postoperative day 1 (POD1). Further objectives were to compare pain, quality of recovery (QoR), and satisfaction between the groups. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective cohort study of patients with planned SDD. A standardized ERAS protocol was utilized. The QoR-40 questionnaire was administered at baseline, POD2, and the 6-week postoperative visit. Pain scores were captured similarly, and a satisfaction survey was administered at 6 weeks. The primary outcome was composite adverse events defined as any postoperative adverse event and/or health care utilization, excluding telephone calls, and urinary tract infection. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were enrolled in the study; the primary outcome was available for 99. SDD was achieved for 76 patients (77.0%); 23 patients stayed overnight (23.2%). The overall incidence of composite adverse events was 20.2% (95% CI, 13.5-29.2), and was not different between the groups (26.1% vs 18.4%, p = 0.42). Additionally, there were no differences in the QoR-40 or pain scores on POD2 and at 6 weeks. Patient satisfaction was high and similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Successful SDD was achieved in 77.0% of the patients. SDD following vaginal hysterectomy and native-tissue colpopexy appears to be safe, feasible, and associated with good QoR and a high degree of patient satisfaction.

From 3D to 2D-4K laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: are we addicted to technology?

OBJECTIVE: A study analyzing perioperative outcomes related to a sudden switch from 3D to 2D-4K technology for laparoscopic sacral colpopexy by expert pelvic surgeons: are we addicted to technology? MATERIAL AND METHODS: After a sudden transition from 3D to 2D-4K laparoscopic technology, a total of 115 consecutive pelvic prolapse patients who underwent sacral colpopexy from June 2020 to September 2021 were retrospectively assessed from our database. Perioperative parameters, operative times (OT), and intraoperative difficulty scales were assessed. One-year follow-ups were analyzed for the study. Primary endpoints were OT; secondary endpoint was the evaluation of complications linked to this procedure. RESULTS: We found statistical differences in OT and intraoperative difficulty scales between medians of the last 3D procedures and the first ten 2D-4K surgeries, without differences between operators. Only after more than 20 surgeries, we observed no significant differences between 3D and 2D-4K sacral colpopexy. We observed no statistical differences in terms of anatomic failure, PGI-I, and intra-postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: The transition of urogynecology from an exclusive vaginal approach to 2D-3D-4K laparoscopy significantly increased the level of technology necessary for surgical treatment of prolapse. This could, as a result, lead to pelvic surgeons becoming increasingly dependent on technology.

Spondylodiscitis after sacral colpopexy: diagnose early to treat earlier.

Spondylodiscitis following sacral colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) represents a rare complication with severe consequences. Authors performed a literature search, from 2000 to 2022, to set a narrative review of literature. Spondylodiscitis is an uncommon but dangerous side effect of a routine surgical treatment that needs to be identified and treated right away to prevent worsening clinical consequences. Suboptimal dissection of the sacral promontory and/or site infection are associated with spondylodiscitis. When spondylodiscitis is suspected, advanced imaging methods should be used, and surgical excision shouldn't be put off after a failed course of treatment. Authors presented a case-video of a 68-year-old woman who reported severe lower back pain 7 weeks after surgery, in which sacral spondylodiscitis was diagnosed and laparoscopically treated. In this case, a laparoscopic tack and mesh removal from promontory was carried out following the patient's continued lower back pain and the antibiotic therapy's incomplete radiological remission of spondylodiscitis. The patient's radiological findings and symptoms completely resolved two weeks following the procedure.

Diagnosis and management of complications following pelvic organ prolapse surgery using a synthetic mesh: French national guidelines for clinical practice.

Complications associated with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery using a synthetic non-absorbable mesh are uncommon (<5%) but may be severe and may hugely diminish the quality of life of some women. In drawing up these multidisciplinary clinical practice recommendations, the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de santé, HAS) conducted an exhaustive review of the literature concerning the diagnosis, prevention, and management of complications associated with POP surgery using a synthetic mesh. Each recommendation for practice was allocated a grade (A,B or C; or expert opinion (EO)), which depends on the level of evidence (clinical practice guidelines). PREOPERATIVE PATIENTS' INFORMATION: Each patient must be informed concerning the risks associated with POP surgery (EO). HEMORRHAGE, HEMATOMA: Vaginal infiltration using a vasoconstrictive solution is not recommended during POP surgery by the vaginal route (grade C). The placement of vaginal packing is not recommended following POP surgery by the vaginal route (grade C). During laparoscopic sacral colpopexy, when the promontory seems highly dangerous or when severe adhesions prevent access to the anterior vertebral ligament, alternative surgical techniques should be discussed per operatively, including colpopexy by lateral mesh laparoscopic suspension, uterosacral ligament suspension, open abdominal mesh surgery, or surgery by the vaginal route (EO). BLADDER INJURY: When a bladder injury is diagnosed, bladder repair by suturing is recommended, using a slow resorption suture thread, plus monitoring of the permeability of the ureters (before and after bladder repair) when the injury is located at the level of the trigone (EO). When a bladder injury is diagnosed, after bladder repair, a prosthetic mesh (polypropylene or polyester material) can be placed between the repaired bladder and the vagina, if the quality of the suturing is good. The recommended duration of bladder catheterization following bladder repair in this context of POP mesh surgery is from 5 to 10 days (EO). URETER INJURY: After ureteral repair, it is possible to continue sacral colpopexy and place the mesh if it is located away from the ureteral repair (EO). RECTAL INJURY: Regardless of the approach, when a rectal injury occurs, a posterior mesh should not be placed between the rectum and the vagina wall (EO). Concerning the anterior mesh, it is recommended to use a macroporous monofilament polypropylene mesh (EO). A polyester mesh is not recommended in this situation (EO). VAGINAL WALL INJURY: After vaginal wall repair, an anterior or a posterior microporous polypropylene mesh can be placed, if the quality of the repair is found to be satisfactory (EO). A polyester mesh should not be used after vaginal wall repair (EO). MESH INFECTION (ABSCESS, CELLULITIS, SPONDYLODISCITIS): Regardless of the surgical approach, intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended (aminopenicillin + beta-lactamase inhibitor: 30 min before skin incision +/- repeated after 2 h if surgery lasts longer) (EO). When spondylodiscitis is diagnosed following sacral colpopexy, treatment should be discussed by a multidisciplinary group, including especially spine specialists (rheumatologists, orthopedists, neurosurgeons) and infectious disease specialists (EO). When a pelvic abscess occurs following synthetic mesh sacral colpopexy, it is recommended to carry out complete mesh removal as soon as possible, combined with collection of intraoperative bacteriological samples, drainage of the collection and targeted antibiotic therapy (EO). Non-surgical conservative management with antibiotic therapy may be an option (EO) in certain conditions (absence of signs of sepsis, macroporous monofilament polypropylene type 1 mesh, prior microbiological documentation and multidisciplinary consultation for the choice of type and duration of antibiotic therapy), associated with close monitoring of the patient. BOWEL OCCLUSION RELATED TO NON-CLOSURE OF THE PERITONEUM: Peritoneal closure is recommended after placement of a synthetic mesh by the abdominal approach (EO). URINARY RETENTION: Preoperative urodynamics is recommended in women presenting with urinary symptoms (bladder outlet obstruction symptoms, overactive bladder syndrome or incontinence) (EO). It is recommended to remove the bladder catheter at the end of the procedure or within 48 h after POP surgery (grade B). Bladder emptying and post-void residual should be checked following POP surgery, before discharge (EO). When postoperative urine retention occurs after POP surgery, it is recommended to carry out indwelling catheterization and to prefer intermittent self-catheterization (EO). POSTOPERATIVE PAIN: Before POP surgery, the patient should be asked about risk factors for prolonged and chronic postoperative pain (pain sensitization, allodynia, chronic pelvic or non-pelvic pain) (EO). Concerning the prevention of postoperative pain, it is recommended to carry out a pre-, per- and postoperative multimodal pain treatment (grade B). The use of ketamine intraoperatively is recommended for the prevention of chronic postoperative pelvic pain, especially for patients with risk factors (preoperative painful sensitization, allodynia, chronic pelvic or non-pelvic pain) (EO). Postoperative prescription of opioids should be limited in quantity and duration (grade C). When acute neuropathic pain (sciatalgia or pudendal neuralgia) resistant to level I and II analgesics occurs following sacrospinous fixation, a reintervention is recommended for suspension suture removal (EO). When chronic postoperative pain occurs after POP surgery, it is recommended to systematically seek arguments in favor of neuropathic pain with the DN4 questionnaire (EO). When chronic postoperative pelvic pain occurs after POP surgery, central sensitization should be identified since it requires a consultation in a chronic pain department (EO). Concerning myofascial pain syndrome (clinical pain condition associated with increased muscle tension caused by myofascial trigger points), when chronic postoperative pain occurs after POP surgery, it is recommended to examine the levator ani, piriformis and obturator internus muscles, so as to identify trigger points on the pathway of the synthetic mesh (EO). Pelvic floor muscle training with muscle relaxation is recommended when myofascial pain syndrome is associated with chronic postoperative pain following POP surgery (EO). After failure of pelvic floor muscle training (3 months), it is recommended to discuss surgical removal of the synthetic mesh, during a multidisciplinary discussion group meeting (EO). Partial removal of synthetic mesh is indicated when a trigger point is located on the pathway of the mesh (EO). Total removal of synthetic mesh should be discussed during a multidisciplinary discussion group meeting when diffuse (no trigger point) chronic postoperative pain occurs following POP surgery, with or without central sensitization or neuropathic pain syndromes (EO). POSTOPERATIVE DYSPAREUNIA: When de novo postoperative dyspareunia occurs after POP surgery, surgical removal of the mesh should be discussed (EO). VAGINAL MESH EXPOSURE: To reduce the risk of vaginal mesh exposure, when hysterectomy is required during sacral colpopexy, subtotal hysterectomy is recommended (grade C). When asymptomatic vaginal macroporous monofilament polypropylene mesh exposure occurs, systematic imaging is not recommended. When vaginal polyester mesh exposure occurs, pelvic +/- lumbar MRI (EO) should be used to look for an abscess or spondylodiscitis, given the greater risk of infection associated with this type of material. When asymptomatic vaginal mesh exposure of less than 1 cm2 occurs in a woman with no sexual intercourse, the patient should be offered observation (no treatment) or local estrogen therapy (EO). However, if the patient wishes, partial excision of the mesh can be offered. When asymptomatic vaginal mesh exposure of more than 1 cm2 occurs or if the woman has sexual intercourse, or if it is a polyester prosthesis, partial mesh excision, either immediately or after local estrogen therapy, should be offered (EO). When symptomatic vaginal mesh exposure occurs, but without infectious complications, surgical removal of the exposed part of the mesh by the vaginal route is recommended (EO), and not systematic complete excision of the mesh. Following sacral colpopexy, complete removal of the mesh (by laparoscopy or laparotomy) is only required in the presence of an abscess or spondylodiscitis (EO). When vaginal mesh exposure recurs after a first reoperation, the patient should be treated by an experienced team specialized in this type of complication (EO). SUTURE THREAD VAGINAL EXPOSURE: For women presenting with vaginal exposure to non-absorbable suture thread following POP surgery with mesh reinforcement, the suture thread should be removed by the vaginal route (EO). Removal of the surrounding mesh is only recommended when vaginal mesh exposure or associated abscess is diagnosed. BLADDER AND URETERAL MESH EXPOSURE: When bladder mesh exposure occurs, removal of the exposed part of the mesh is recommended (grade B). Both alternatives (total or partial mesh removal) should be discussed with the patient and should be debated during a multidisciplinary discussion group meeting (EO).

Quality of Life and Sexual Function after Laparoscopic Posterior Vaginal Plication Plus Sacral Colpopexy for Severe Posterior Vaginal Prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) is the gold standard treatment for women with apical/anterior pelvic organ prolapse (POP). For isolated posterior vaginal prolapse, instead, the literature suggests fascial native tissue repair. This is a retrospective 2-year quality-of-life follow-up study after laparoscopic posterior plication (LPP) combined with LSC in patients with anterior/apical prolapse combined with severe posterior colpocele. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the subjective outcomes quality of life (QoL), sexual function, and patient satisfaction rate. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate perioperative and anatomical outcomes at the 2-year follow-up. METHODS: A total of 139 consecutive patients with anterior and/or apical prolapse (POP-Q stage ≥ II) and severe posterior vaginal prolapse (posterior POP-Q stage ≥ III) were retrospectively selected from our database among women who underwent, from November 2018 to February 2021, a "two-meshes" LSC. The patients were classified into Group A (81 patients; LSC plus LPP) and Group B (67 patients; LSC alone). The primary endpoint was evaluated using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7), the Female Sexual Distress Scale (FSDS), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), and the EuroQol (EQ-5D). The secondary endpoint was studied using the POP-Q study and an intra-, peri-, and post-operative complications assessment. Two-year follow-up data were analyzed for the study. RESULTS: At 2 years, all women showed a statistically significant amelioration of their symptoms on the QoL questionnaires. We found a statistical difference in favor of posterior plication in terms of the PGI-I successful outcome rate (Group A versus B: 85.3% versus 67.1%), FSDS (median 11 versus 21), and PISQ-12 (median 89 versus 62) (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). A significant improvement of all EQ-5D values was observed from baseline to 2-year follow-up, and only for the "pain/discomfort" domains did we observe a significant improvement in LSC plus LPP patients versus LSC alone (p < 0.05). LSC plus LPP women showed, at 2 years, a significant amelioration of their Ap and GH POP-Q points. We observed no statistical differences in terms of intra-post-operative complications or anatomic failure rate between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our LPP approach to LSC appears to be a safe, feasible, and effective treatment for advanced pelvic organ prolapse with a significant impact on the patient's general health and sexual quality of life. Adding laparoscopic posterior vaginal plication to "two-meshes" sacral colpopexy is recommended in patients with apical/anterior prolapse and concomitant severe posterior colpocele. This surgical approach, in addition to improving the anatomical results of these patients, is associated with a significant improvement in sexual and quality of life indexes.

Restrictive opioid prescribing after surgery for prolapse and incontinence: a randomized, noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are routinely prescribed for postoperative pain control after gynecologic surgery with growing evidence showing that most prescribed opioids go unused. Restrictive opioid prescribing has been implemented in other surgical specialties to combat the risk for opioid misuse and diversion. The impact of this practice in the urogynecologic patient population is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if a restrictive opioid prescription protocol is noninferior to routine opioid prescribing in terms of patient satisfaction with pain control after minor and major surgeries for prolapse and incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-center, randomized, noninferiority trial of opioid-naïve patients who underwent minor (eg, colporrhaphy or mid-urethral sling) or major (eg, vaginal or minimally invasive abdominal prolapse repair) urogynecologic surgery. Patients were excluded if they had contraindications to all multimodal analgesia and if they scored ≥30 on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Subjects were randomized on the day of surgery to the standard opioid prescription protocol (wherein patients routinely received an opioid prescription upon discharge [ie, 3-10 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone]) or to the restrictive protocol (no opioid prescription unless the patient requested one). All patients received multimodal pain medications. Participants and caregivers were not blinded. Subjects were asked to record their pain medication use and pain levels for 7 days. The primary outcome was satisfaction with pain control reported at the 6-week postoperative visit. We hypothesized that patient satisfaction with the restrictive protocol would be noninferior to those randomized to the standard protocol. The noninferiority margin was 15 percentage points. Pain level scores, opioid usage, opioid prescription refills, and healthcare use were secondary outcomes assessed for superiority. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients were randomized, and 127 (64 in the standard arm and 63 in the restrictive arm) completed the primary outcome evaluation and were included in the analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups, and this remained after adjusting for the surgery type. Major urogynecologic surgery was performed in 73.6% of the study population, and minor surgery was performed in 26.4% of the population. Same-day discharge occurred for 87.6% of all subjects. Patient satisfaction was 92.2% in the standard protocol arm and 92.1% in the restrictive protocol arm (difference, -0.1%; P=.004), which met the criterion for noninferiority. No opioid usage in the first 7 days after hospital discharge was reported by 48.4% of the patients in the standard protocol arm and by 70.8% in the restrictive protocol arm (P=.009). Opioid prescription refills occurred in 8.5% of patients with no difference between the study groups (9.4% in the standard arm vs 6.7% in the restrictive arm; P=.661). No difference was seen in the rate of telephone calls and urgent visits for pain control between the study arms. CONCLUSION: Among women who underwent minor and major surgery for prolapse and incontinence, patient satisfaction rates were noninferior after restrictive opioid prescribing when compared with routine opioid prescribing.

Long-Term Results after Bilateral Sacrospinous Colposuspension: A Prospective Study.

The loss of apical support is usually present in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. An effective correction for the vaginal apex may be an essential part of a durable repair for these women. Apical suspension of the sacrospinous ligament is likely one of the best treatments by the vaginal route. We proposed the evaluation of the functional and anatomical long-term results of an ultralight and macroporous sling. In this prospective study, bilateral sacrospinous colposuspension was performed in 32 patients with a specific mesh. Functional assessment with several validated quality of life questionnaires and pelvic examination was performed at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Pelvic examination using the POP-Q classification showed a very good efficacy of the BSC mesh with only three prolapse recurrences at 24 months after surgery. All the following QoL scores were significantly improved by two years: PFIQ-7 (p < 0.0001), PFDI-20 (p < 0.0001), and SF-12 (p < 0.0001). No improvement was achieved by the PISQ12 questionnaire. This vaginal minimally invasive procedure is effective, quick, reproducible, and easy. It may be a relevant option for a vaginal vault or cervical or uterine prolapse.

Clinical, anatomical and perioperative outcomes of abdominal sacral colpopexy using autologous fascia: A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: Although sacral colpopexy is considered the gold standard for the treatment of advanced apical prolapse, several warnings and restrictions has been delivered to urogynecological surgeons in order to avoid the implants of prosthetics meshes. The purpose of this systematic review is to investigate the role of sacral colpopexy performed with autologous tissue in literature. METHODS: a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines was performed in June 2022 through the Medline, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Quality assessment of each article was performed according to Critical Appraisal tool of Oxford center for EBM, LoE according to SORT standards, ROBINS-I tool for methodological assessment in non-randomized trials. From 236 screened records, 7 articles were considered eligible for this systematic review. RESULTS: Collected data showed objective cure rate ranging from 94.7% to 100% in medium term follow up. Subjective cure rate was specifically investigated in 2 studies with high satisfaction rates. Complication rate ranged from 0 to 36.8%, with 90.1% graded ≤2 according to Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSIONS: sacral colpopexy with autologous fascia shows satisfying outcomes in terms of safety and efficacy and may be taken in account in particular clinical situations.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomised controlled trial and prospective cohort (SALTO-2 trial).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or vaginal sacrospinous fixation (VSF) is the most optimal surgical treatment in patients with POP-Q stage ≥2 vaginal vault prolapse (VVP). DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) and prospective cohort study alongside. SETTING: Seven non-university teaching hospitals and two university hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Patients with symptomatic post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse, requiring surgical treatment. METHODS: Randomisation in a 1:1 ratio to LSC or VSF. Evaluation of prolapse was done using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q). All participants were asked to fill in various Dutch validated questionnaires 12 months postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes included composite outcome of success and anatomical failure. Furthermore, we examined peri-operative data, complications and sexual function. RESULTS: A total of 179 women, 64 women randomised and 115 women, participated in a prospective cohort. Disease-specific quality of life did not differ after 12 months between the LSC and VSF group in the RCT and the cohort (RCT: P = 0.887; cohort: P = 0.704). The composite outcomes of success for the apical compartment, in the RCT and cohort, were 89.3% and 90.3% in the LSC group and 86.2% and 87.8% in the VSF group, respectively (RCT: P = 0.810; cohort: P = 0.905). There were no differences in number of reinterventions and complications between both groups (reinterventions RCT: P = 0.934; cohort: P = 0.120; complications RCT: P = 0.395; cohort: P = 0.129). CONCLUSIONS: LSC and VSF are both effective treatments for vaginal vault prolapse, after a follow-up period of 12 months.

Vaginal Vault Prolapse in an Elderly Woman.

Vaginal vault prolapse is a painful condition in which the vaginal cuff descends. This report presents a case of a 65-year-old obese and diabetic female who was suffering from a third-degree vault prolapse. Conventionally used non-surgical treatments, such as exercises for the pelvic floor, are not as effective as surgical approaches for the treatment of third-degree vault prolapse. Post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse can be treated safely and effectively with abdominal sacral colpopexy using a permanent mesh. Due to several risk factors, such as grand parity, advancing age, and poor lifestyle mainly involving exercise to strengthen pelvic floor musculature, the vaginal route of surgery was employed, which was found to be effective, and thus the treatment was successful. In conclusion, such individualized as well as unique approaches to such rare cases can produce efficacious results.

Corrección del prolapso de cúpula vaginal mediante colpopexia vía abdominal

Introducción: Las disfunciones del suelo pélvico se consideran un problema de salud en el mundo y constituyen una de las indicaciones de operaciones ginecológicas más comunes. Entre sus variantes está el prolapso de la cúpula vaginal. Objetivos: Evaluar los resultados de la corrección del prolapso de cúpula vaginal por la técnica de colpopexia, mediante fijación con tiras aponeuróticas a la pared abdominal anterior. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional, descriptivo. Las variables utilizadas fueron la edad, presencia de comorbilidades, el número de cirugías previas y el grado de satisfacción subjetivo de las pacientes, luego del procedimiento. Resultados: Hubo predominio de edades avanzadas en la muestra estudiada con 89,5 % de pacientes mayores de 55 años. En la mayoría de las pacientes se encontró una o más comorbilidades que favorecieron la presencia de esta afección. Un total de 8 pacientes habían sido sometidas a una cirugía correctora previa para el prolapso (30,7 %). Al mes de la cirugía el 80,7 % tenía una puntuación de 1-3 de la escala de evaluación PGI-I, valor que fue en ascenso y alcanzó el 96,1 % a los 3 meses, el 100 % a los 6 meses y al año. Conclusiones: La corrección del prolapso de la cúpula vaginal, mediante colpopexia por vía abdominal es una alternativa de tratamiento para las pacientes, fundamentalmente jóvenes o que quieren conservar la funcionalidad vaginal y la vida sexual activa.

Introduction: Pelvic floor dysfunctions are considered a health problem in the world, and constitute one of the most common indications for gynecological surgery. Among its variants is the prolapse of the vaginal vault. Objectives: To evaluate the results of the correction of the vaginal vault prolapse by the colpopexy technique by means of fixation with aponeurotic strips to the anterior abdominal wall. Methods: An observational, descriptive, retrospective study was carried out. The variables used were age, presence of comorbidities, the number of previous surgeries and the degree of subjective satisfaction of the patients after the procedure. Results: There was a predominance of advanced ages in the sample studied with 89.5% of patients older than 55 years. In most of the patients, one or more comorbidities were found that favored the presence of this condition. A total of 8 patients had undergone previous corrective surgery for the prolapse (30.7%). One month after surgery, 80.7% had a score of 1-3 on the evaluation, a value that increased and reached 96.1% at 3 months, and 100% at 6 months, and one year. Conclusions: Vaginal vault prolapse correction by mean of abdominal way colpopexy is therapeutic alternative, mainly young, and those who want to preserve vaginal functionality, and active sexual life.

Laparoscopic posterior vaginal plication plus sacral colpopexy for severe posterior vaginal prolapse: A randomized clinical trial.

AIM: A randomized clinical trial proposing a new laparoscopic prosthetic and fascial approach to severe posterior vaginal prolapse. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the objective and subjective outcomes of our laparoscopic posterior plication (LPP) combined to "two-mesh" sacral colpopexy (laparoscopic sacral colpopexy [LSC]) in severe posterior vaginal prolapse, with a 1-year follow-up. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the safety of this surgical procedure. METHODS: This is single-center prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial. A total of 130 consecutive patients with anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) (POP-Q stage ≥II) and severe posterior vaginal prolapse (posterior POP-Q stage ≥III) were prospectively assessed for inclusion into the study from November 2018 to January 2020. Patients underwent "two-meshes" LSC and were randomized in Group A (LSC plus LPP) and Group A (LSC alone). Of the 130 included subjects, 8 were excluded, not meeting inclusion criteria. Cure rate was evaluated objectively, using POP-Q study, and subjectively using PGI-I, POPDI-6, and FSDS questionnaires. Complications were assessed intra-, peri-, and postoperatively. Twelve-month follow-ups were analyzed for the study. RESULTS: We found in LSC plus LPP Group a significant improvement of Ap and genital hiatus POP-Q points. Our subjective study showed, at 12 months, a statistical difference in PGI-I successful outcomes rate in favor of LPP. Also the FSDS resulted significantly much more improved in Group A. We observed no statistical differences in terms of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our LPP approach to LSC could be considered an effective and safe technique to POP patients with severe posterior prolapse.

Robot-Assisted Sacropexy with the Novel HUGO Robot-Assisted Surgery System: Initial Experience and Surgical Setup at a Tertiary Referral Robotic Center.

Introduction and Hypothesis: Robotic sacropexy (RSC) emerged in the last years as a valid alternative to the laparoscopic technique. However, the robotic approach is still limited by platform availability and concerns about cost-effectiveness. Recently, new robotic platforms joined the market, lowering the costs and offering the possibility to expand the robotic approach. The aim of our study was to demonstrate the technical feasibility and safety of the procedure with this new platform along with the description of our surgical setting. Materials and Methods: We reported data on the first five consecutive patients who underwent RSC at Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital (Aalst, Belgium), performed with the novel HUGO™ Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS) System. The platform consists of four fully independent carts, an open console, and a system tower equipped for both laparoscopic and robotic surgery. We collected patients' characteristics, intraoperative data, intraoperative complications, and clashes of instruments. Results: All procedures were completed according to the same surgical setting and technique. No need for conversion to open/laparoscopic surgery and/or for additional port placement was required. No intraoperative complications, instrument clashes, or system failure that compromised the surgery's completion were recorded. Median interquartile range docking, operative, and console time were 8 (6-9), 130 (115-165), and 80 (80-115) minutes, respectively. Conclusion: This series represents the first worldwide report of a robot-assisted sacropexy executed with the novel HUGO RAS System. Awaiting future investigation, this preliminary experience provides relevant data in terms of operative room settings and perioperative outcomes that might be helpful for future adopters of this platform.

Review of Vaginal Approaches to Apical Prolapse Repair.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review recent literature and provide up-to-date knowledge on new and important findings in vaginal approaches to apical prolapse surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Overall prolapse recurrence rates following transvaginal apical prolapse repair range from 13.7 to 70.3% in medium- to long-term follow-up, while reoperation rates for prolapse recurrence are lower, ranging from 1 to 35%. Subjective prolapse symptoms remain improved despite increasing anatomic failure rates over time. The majority of studies demonstrated improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life in over 80% of patients 2-3 years after transvaginal repair, with similar outcomes with and without uterine preservation. Contemporary studies continue to demonstrate the safety of transvaginal native tissue repair with most adverse events occurring within the first 2 years. Transvaginal apical prolapse repair is safe and effective. It is associated with long-term improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life despite increasing rates of prolapse recurrence over time. Subjective outcomes do not correlate with anatomic outcomes.

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy plus sacral colpopexy: continuous locked suture for mesh fixation. A randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) plus sacral colpopexy (LSC) is a high-complexity surgical procedure. The aim of the present study was to evaluate a new approach to rectal-mesh fixation during LVR with continuous locked suture. METHODS: This is a prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial enrolling 80 patients with severe POP and obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) from November 2016 to January 2021. Patients underwent a "two-meshes" LSC plus LVR and were randomized, regarding rectal mesh fixation, in Group A (extracorporeal interrupted 0 delayed absorbable sutures) and Group B ("U-shaped" running locked 0 delayed absorbable suture). Our primary endpoints were the operative times (OT); the secondary endpoints were the incidence of anatomical failures, vaginal mesh erosions and surgical complications. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients completed the study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Overall OT (156 vs 138 min; p < 0.05; treatment reduction of 11.5%) and LVR mesh fixation time (29 vs 16 min; p < 0.05; treatment reduction of 44%), resulted in significantly lower in Group B. No differences were found in terms of anatomic failure, vaginal mesh erosion or intra- or post-operative complications. PGI-I, FSDS and Wexner questionnaires resulted significantly improved after surgery, without statistical differences between the studied surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic continuous locked 0 absorbable suture for LVR mesh fixation guaranteed a faster and effective alternative to multiple interrupted sutures. The significant OT reduction linked to this technique should be considered even more helpful when performing a highly complex surgery such as LVR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05254860 (13/02/2017).

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse repair: A retrospective cohort study.

Introduction: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a progressive herniation of the pelvic organs through the urogenital diaphragm and commonly leads to vaginal bulge. Sacrocolpopexy is a procedure that surgically corrects POP and can be performed as open abdominal surgery or laparoscopic surgery. This study was performed to compare the therapeutic efficacies of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy. Methods: The medical records of 105 patients who had undergone laparoscopic or open abdominal sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy at Jeju National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. We compared the basic characteristics and clinical outcomes of these two groups of patients. Results: No significant difference was observed between the characteristics of the patients in the abdominal-approach group and the laparoscopic-approach group. The laparoscopic-approach group had a lower intraoperative estimated blood loss (177.8 vs. 89.3 mL, P < 0.001) and a shorter operative time (132.0 vs. 112.3 min, P < 0.001) than the abdominal-approach group. The complication rates of the two groups were not significantly different. Conclusion: The results of our study favor the use of a laparoscopic approach for sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy. The less invasive method leads to less blood loss and a shorter operative time than an open approach, while maintaining a comparable rate of complications.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic retropubic sling at the time of vaginal prolapse surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic midurethral sling placement at the time of prolapse repair significantly reduces the risk for de novo stress urinary incontinence, but it is associated with some small but significant morbidities. Because there has not been a standardized approach to midurethral sling utilization, decision analysis provides a method to evaluate the cost and effectiveness associated with varying midurethral sling placement strategies in addressing the risk for de novo stress urinary incontinence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the cost effectiveness of the 3 midurethral sling utilization strategies in treating de novo stress urinary incontinence 1 year after vaginal prolapse repair. The 3 approaches are (1) staged strategy in which prolapse repair is done without prophylactic midurethral sling placement, (2) universal sling placement in which prolapse repair is accompanied by prophylactic midurethral sling placement, and (3) selective sling placement in which prolapse repair is accompanied by prophylactic midurethral sling placement only in patients with a positive prolapse-reduced cough stress test. STUDY DESIGN: We created a decision analysis model to compare staged strategy, universal sling placement, and selective sling placement. We modeled probabilities of de novo stress urinary incontinence, patients choosing subsequent midurethral sling surgery for de novo stress urinary incontinence, and outcomes related to midurethral sling placement. De novo stress urinary incontinence rates were determined for each strategy from published data. The likelihood of patients with de novo stress urinary incontinence choosing midurethral sling surgery as their first-line treatment was also determined from the literature, and this scenario was only applied to patients without prophylactic midurethral sling placement at their index prolapse repair. Finally, outcomes related to midurethral sling placement, including recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence, voiding dysfunction requiring sling lysis, mesh exposure requiring excision, and de novo overactive bladder requiring medications, were all derived from publicly available data. All midurethral sling placement procedures were assumed to be retropubic. The costs for each procedure were obtained from the 2020 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule or from previous literature with convertion to 2020 equivalent US dollar prices using the Consumer Price Index. The primary outcome was modeled as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. We performed multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses to assess model robustness. RESULTS: The lowest-cost strategy was the staged strategy, which cost $1051.70 per patient, followed by $1093.75 for selective sling placement and $1125.54 for universal sling placement. The selective sling approach, however, had the highest health utility value; therefore, universal sling placement was dominated by selective sling placement because it is both less costly and more effective. When compared with the staged strategy, selective sling placement was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2664 per quality adjusted life-years, meeting the predetermined threshold. In multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses, the variable with the largest effect was the percentage of patients electing to undergo subsequent midurethral sling surgery for de novo stress urinary incontinence after the index surgery. Only when this proportion exceeded 62% did universal sling placement become the cost-effective option because selective sling placement surpassed the predetermined incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold and became dominated. CONCLUSION: Selective sling placement was the preferred and cost-effective strategy in treating de novo stress urinary incontinence 1 year after vaginal prolapse repair. Surgeons should counsel their patients preoperatively regarding the possibility of de novo stress urinary incontinence after prolapse repair, as well as on the benefits and risks of prophylactic midurethral sling placement surgery.

Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs. Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Case-Control Study.

Introduction: Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is the gold standard technique for apical prolapse correction but it is a technically challenging procedure with rare but severe morbidity. Laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension could be a valid technically easier alternative using native tissue. Material and Methods: In the period from 2015 to 2018, 600 women were submitted to laparoscopic sacral colpopexy while 150 to laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension in three Italian urogynecology referral centers. We enrolled women with apical prolapse stage ≥2 alone or multicompartment descensus. To reduce allocation bias, we performed a propensity matched analysis. Women undergoing laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension surgery were matched 1:2 to women undergoing laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. The cumulative proportion of relapse-free women in time was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. The primary objective of this multicenter case-control retrospective study was to compare the recurrence rate while the secondary objectives were to compare feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Results: Three hundred and nine women were enrolled (103 laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension; 206 laparoscopic sacral colpopexy). Median operatory time was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension group (P = 0.0001). No statistically significative difference was found in terms of estimated blood loss, admission time, intraoperative, and major early postoperative complications, postoperative pelvic pain, dyspareunia and de novo stress urinary incontinence. Surgical approach was the only independent risk factor for prolapse recurrence (RR = 6.013 [2.965-12.193], P = 0.0001). The objective cure rate was higher in the laparoscopic sacral colpopexy group (93.7 vs. 68%, 193/206 vs. 70/103, P = 0.0001) with a highly reduced risk of recurrence (RR = 5.430 [1.660-17.765]). Median follow up was 22 months. Conclusion: Both techniques are safe, feasible, and effective. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy remains the best choice in treatment of multicompartment and advanced pelvic organ prolapse while laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension could be appropriate for moderate and isolated apical prolapse when laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is not suitable for the patient or to prevent prolapse in women at high risk at the time of the hysterectomy.