Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy for the Management of Uterovaginal Prolapse: a Pilot, Single-Center Experience from Saudi Arabia.

Background: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is an emerging uterine-preserving strategy for management of uterovaginal prolapse (UVP). The literature on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of UVP is very scarce from Saudi Arabia. This research examined the feasibility, clinical utility, and safety of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in a Saudi setting. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted, including all patients who met the inclusion criteria. The laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy technique was adapted with modifications from the "Oxford hysteropexy". The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as anatomical success in all vaginal compartments (UVP grade 0 or 1 postoperatively). The secondary endpoint was the mean change in point C. Descriptive data were summarized with numbers and percentages, while numerical data used means ± standard deviations. Fisher's exact and Student's t tests were used for univariate analyses. Significant surgical outcome predictors were identified via logistic regression, with p <0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Overall, 21 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent indication for laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was UVP without anterior or posterior wall prolapse (n = 15, 71.4%), whereas the most frequent grade of UVP was grade III (n = 13, 61.9%). One patient (4.8%) required switch to laparotomy due to severe adhesions. No perioperative complications were recorded. The mean change in point C and hospital stay were 5.8 ± 2.1 (range: 0-8) and 1.4 ± 0.6 days (range: 1-3), respectively. Surgical success was achieved in 18 patients (85.7%). Only three patients experienced recurrences (one, two, and six months postoperatively). The mean change in point C was significantly higher in successful cases contrasted with the failed cases (6.5 versus 1.3). Conclusion: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of uterovaginal prolapse revealed technical feasibility, safety, and beneficial utility of the procedure. Further large-sized and multicentric investigations are important to gather additional pertinent information on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy.

Outcomes of Abdominal Apical Suspension Using Mesh in a Tertiary Training Hospital: A Seven-year Retrospective Review.

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is an inconvenience that can affect a woman's well-being. Reconstructive pelvic floor surgery involves repairing defects in the endopelvic fascia and pelvic floor musculature as close to the physiologic and anatomic norm. The cornerstone of successful prolapse repair is a strong apical support. Objective: The aim of the study is to determine the outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) and abdominal sacrohysteropexy (ASH) in the Philippines. Methods: The study utilized a descriptive study design to compare the pre-operative and post-operative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Score (POP-Q Score), presence of mesh complications, and urinary/bowel symptoms in patients operated within 2010-2016 in a Philippine tertiary training hospital. Based on recovered charts and inclusion/exclusion criteria, this study sampled 34 of 50 patient records. Statistical measures of median and range were used to describe pre-operative and post-operative POP-Q scores in any two follow-ups within 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month interval. The objective success rate and incidence of urinary/bowel symptoms were described using frequencies and percentages. Presence of any mesh erosion was noted for each follow-up. McNemar's test was applied to assess the comparative occurrence of each symptom comparing between the pre-operative and first follow-up periods. Results: ASC had a success rate of 73.7% at six months and 56.3% at 12 months post-surgery. ASH showed an 84.6% success rate at six months and 71.4% at 12 months. Apical support has a 97% success rate without affecting the anterior or posterior compartments. Out of 20 ASC patients, 5 (25%) exhibited anterior compartment descent, whereas two out of 14 ASH patients (14.2%) had the same condition. It is observed that the anterior vaginal wall has the higher tendency to descend after reconstructive surgery, independent of route or technique. In addition, not all patients with surgical prolapse beyond -1 experienced symptomatic vaginal bulges. Overall, a notable decrease in the occurrence of urine symptoms was seen after the surgery. No mesh erosion was seen within the initial two years of follow-up but there was a single reported instance of abdominal hernia, an uncommon consequence. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that ASC and ASH have good success rate in apical support; however, descent of the anterior or posterior compartment diminishes the overall success rate in terms of over-all objective POP-Q score. Both resulted to improvement in symptoms with minimal complications.

Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: It is reported that up to 60% of women would prefer to spare their uterus during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery. A reliable hysteropexy technique is therefore crucial. We aimed to describe the safety profile and initial core patient-reported and clinical outcomes of the Pilsner modification of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS) in comparison with the laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy technique (standard laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy [sLSH]) previously used in our unit. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary referral urogynecological center. All patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy between 1 January 2015, and 31 January 2022 were included in the study. Follow-up clinical, patient-reported, and imaging outcomes at the 12-month follow-up time point are presented. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included. Of these, 49 (56.3%) and 38 (43.7%) underwent sLSH and PiMMS respectively. Low numbers of perioperative complications were found in both groups with no mesh-related complications reported following PiMMS up to 12 months postoperatively. There were no apical compartment failures in either group. There were 8 (17.0%) vs 1 (2.7%) anterior compartment failures (Ba ≤ -1) in the sLSH and PiMMS groups respectively (p = 0.07) at 12 months. At the 1-year follow-up, 42 (89.4%) patients reported a Patient Global Impression of Improvement score of ≤ 2 in the sLSH groups compared with 35 (94.6%) patients following PiMMS. CONCLUSIONS: The PiMMS technique seems to have comparable safety profile and patient-reported outcomes with the sLSH technique. However, there is a trend toward reduced anterior compartment failures with this modification. The findings of this preliminary report need to be re-evaluated in a well-powered prospective study.

A randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing uterine preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh versus laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) significantly affects women's quality of life, occurring in 20-30% of females aged over 20 globally. With aging populations, demand for pelvic reconstructive surgery is rising. Patients seek anatomical restoration while preserving uterus and sexual function. Sacrohysteropexy is the gold standard for apical prolapse, but carries risks. Lateral suspension, offers safer apical and anterior correction especially for obese, sexually active women. Our prospective study compares laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and lateral suspension objectively and subjectively. STUDY DESIGN: The study included patients who had laparoscopic lateral suspension (n = 22) or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (n = 22) for symptomatic stage 2 apical prolapse. Groups randomized with using block design. Anatomical cure was based on measurements taken by the same physician, unaware of intervention, before and at 12 months using POP-Q score. Pelvic floor ultrasound also used for objective rates. Subjective comparison used Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QoL), Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Symptom Score (POP-SS), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Visual Analog Score (VAS), and Michigan Incontinence Severity Index (M-ISI). RESULTS: Age, BMI, parity, menopause, sexual activity, complications, showed no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). Surgical procedure duration significantly varied between groups lateral suspension group was shorter. There was no significant difference in post operative complications. No significant differences in posterior/enterocele stages.) Anterior staging showed no significant difference in sacrouteropexy (p = 0.130), but significant difference in lateral suspension group (p < 0.001). No significant differences in pre-op and post-op PQOL, POP-SS, FSFI, and M-ISI scores between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Both methods effectively managed apical prolapse with similar outcomes. Objective measurements showed lateral suspension's superiority in reducing bladder descent.

A Retrospective Cohort Study of vNOTES Extraperitoneal Versus Laparoscopic Sacral Hysteropexy With Uterine Preserving Regarding Surgical Outcomes and Two-Year Follow-Up Results.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To explore the effectiveness of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery extraperitoneal sacral hysteropexy (vNOTES-ESH) in women with symptomatic uterine prolapse over a 2 year follow-up. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Gynecological minimally invasive center. PATIENTS: Women undergoing sacral hysteropexy either by vNOTES (n = 25) or laparoscopic (n = 74) between November 2016 and December 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Both vNOTES-ESH and laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy (LAP-SH) were used for uterine prolapse. Demographic data, operative characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up information 2 years postsurgery in the 2 groups were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Both procedures showed similar operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stays, and pain scores (p >0.05). During a median follow-up of 59 (24-72) months, the surgical success rate was 96% for vNOTES-ESH and 97.3% for LAP-SH (p >0.05), with no differences in anatomical position or pelvic organ function after the operation. Women in the LAP-SH group experienced more bothersome symptoms of constipation compared to those in the vNOTES-ESH group (5.41% vs 0, p <0.05). Lastly, 1 case in the vNOTES-ESH group had a mesh exposed area of less than 1 cm2, and 1 patient in the LAP-SH group experienced stress incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, vNOTES-ESH met our patients' preference for uterine preservation and was a successful and effective treatment for uterine prolapse, providing good functional improvement in our follow-up. This procedure should be considered as an option for patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse and the Technique Used for Uterine Preservation: A Case Report.

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is prevalent among middle-aged and older women, and its prevalence is expected to increase in Japan in the future. Laparoscopic surgery for POP is covered by insurance and is currently a minimally invasive procedure. There are multiple treatment approaches for the uterus, especially sacrohysteropexy, for patients who wish to preserve their uterus. This approach requires an understanding of its anatomical characteristics, including how the arm is threaded. However, specific techniques for uterine preservation have not yet been thoroughly investigated or reported. Here, we discuss the innovative operative techniques for uterine preservation and mesh application achieved by laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy performed at our hospital. A 34-year-old woman presented at our hospital with a uterine prolapse in the hope of undergoing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy. The anterior vaginal wall was dissected, the mesh fixed, and the right and left intrauterine foramina next to the cervix were deployed and released. The anterior vaginal wall mesh penetrated the released mesentery and was integrated with the mesh of the posterior vaginal wall. It was fixed to the anterior aspect of the cape angle by using a subperitoneal tunnel. This surgical case is currently under follow-up, with no recurrence to date. We elaborate upon the ingenious insertion site of the port for the preservation of the uterus, the secure fixation of the mesh to the uterus, and the traction method. Unlike laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrocervicopexy, laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy necessitates at least the aforementioned techniques. At our institution, we perform sacrohysteropexy following the method outlined in this case. A more efficient technique is expected to emerge as larger-scale studies accumulate additional cases, ultimately leading to widespread acceptance and standardization of the approach.

Minimally Invasive Sacrohysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether minimally invasive Sacrohysteropexy (SH) is non-inferior to vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) in women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, non-inferiority study. SETTING: Tertiary university-based hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 146 patients with uterovaginal prolapse between July 2016 and August 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either laparoscopic or robotic SH surgery or VH with USLS surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was prolapse recurrence at 1 year after surgery, defined as prolapse ≥ stage 2 evaluated using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system, bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms, or retreatment for prolapse. The secondary outcomes included operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, operation-related complications, pain intensity, quality of life, and activities of daily living. Of 146 women who underwent randomization, 73 in the SH group and 73 in the VH with USLS group were analyzed. SH was non-inferior for recurrence compared with VH with USLS (16.4% vs 15.8%, 95% confidence interval: -13.0% to 14.2%). Operating duration and transvaginal length were significantly longer in the SH group, while there were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, or postoperative complication rates. Although perioperative pain intensity was greater from 1 week to 1 month in the SH group, the quality of life and activities of daily living did not differ between the groups throughout postoperative year 1. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic or robotic SH was non-inferior to VH with USLS for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse at the 1-year follow-up.

Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal mesh use have been largely abandoned. OBJECTIVES: To provide up-to-date evidence by examining only studies investigating techniques currently in use for POP repair. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing surgical procedures for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Studies describing open abdominal approaches or transvaginal mesh implantation were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on extracted data reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included. Hysterectomy and uterine-sparing procedures did not differ in reoperation rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.17), intraoperative major (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79-2.26) and minor (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.79-2.4) complications, postoperative major (OR 1.42; 95% CI 0.85-2.37) and minor (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.9-1.53) complications, and objective (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.92-2.07) or subjective (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.8-1.88) success. Uterine preservation was associated with a shorter operative time (-22.7 min; 95% CI -16.92 to -28.51 min), shorter hospital stay (-0.35 days, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.65 days), and less blood loss (-61.7 mL; 95% CI -31.3 to -92.1 mL). When only studies using a laparoscopic approach for both arms were considered, no differences were observed in investigated outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: No major differences were observed in POP outcomes between procedures with and without concomitant hysterectomy. The decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors.

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates. METHODS: The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants. RESULTS: There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

Gynecologists' perspectives on surgical treatment for apical prolapse: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal sacrospinous fixation (VSF) without mesh and sacrocolpopexy (SCP) with mesh are the most frequently performed surgical procedures for apical prolapse in the Netherlands. There is no long-term evidence suggesting the optimal technique, however. The aim was to identify which factors play a role in the choice between these surgical treatment options. METHODS: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews amongst Dutch gynecologists was carried out. An inductive content analysis was performed with Atlas.ti. RESULTS: Ten interviews were analyzed. All gynecologists performed vaginal surgeries for apical prolapse, six gynecologists perform SCP themselves. Six gynecologists would perform VSF for a primary vaginal vault prolapse (VVP); three gynecologists preferred a SCP. All participants prefer a SCP for recurrent VVP. All participants have stated that multiple comorbidities could be a reason for choosing VSF, as this procedure is considered less invasive. Most participants choose a VSF in the case of older age (6 out of 10) or higher body mass index (7 out of 10). All treat primary uterine prolapse with vaginal, uterine-preserving surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent apical prolapse is the most important factor in advising patients which treatment they should undergo for VVP or uterine descent. Also, the patient's health status and the patient's own preference are important factors. Gynecologists who do not perform the SCP in their own clinic are more likely to perform a VSF and find more reasons not to advise a SCP. All participants prefer a vaginal surgery for a primary uterine prolapse.

The Outcome of Sacrocolpopexy/Sacrohysteropexy for Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Predictors of Anatomical Failure.

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a medical condition that profoundly impacts women's quality of life. Unfortunately, the literature lacks long-term predictors and risk factors for its recurrence. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of Sacrocolpopexy/Sacrohysteropexy and to identify the predictors of recurrence in a Saudi setting. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, all patients who underwent Sacrocolpopexy (n=144) and Sacrohysteropexy (n=56) between 2009-2021 were followed up. Electronic medical records were examined to collect data on the following: Patient characteristics [age, parity, BMI, and past medical and surgical history], prolapse-related characteristics/symptoms, Surgery-related characteristics [type and approach of surgery, mesh type, and concomitant surgery], and Outcome characteristics. Postoperative anatomical success and failure rates were determined according to the Baden-Walker classification. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the predictors of overall anatomical failure of Sacrocolpopexy. Significance was considered at p<0.05. Results: Success rates of 96.8%, 99.4%, and 85.2% were detected in the anterior, apical, and posterior vaginal prolapse, respectively, with an overall success rate of 83.1%. The overall failure rate was 15.9%, with an incidence density of 5.98 per 100 women-years. The onset of failure in 27 failure cases ranged from 40 days to 11.5 years postoperative. After adjustment for the possible potential confounders, older age (OR=1.06, 95% CI:1.01‒1.13, p=0.03) and the presence of diabetes (OR=4.93, 95% CI:1.33‒18.33, p=0.02) were the only significant predictors of operation failure. As for complications, six cases (3.6%) required reoperation, two cases (1.2%) had a bowel obstruction two and seven years after surgery, and one patient (0.6%) had vaginal mesh exposure. Conclusion: The outcomes of Sacrocolpopexy/Sacrohysteropexy in our study are comparable to those in previous studies. Diabetes and elder age at the time of the surgery played a role in predicting recurrence. Sacrocolpopexy has a long-term profile of safety and efficacy. These findings could be key to stratifying surgical plans for pelvic organ prolapse cases.

Long-term safety and efficacy of non-absorbable abdominal mesh for apical prolapse surgery: A 10-year experience at Tertiary Care Hospital.

Objectives: To evaluate the complications of apical prolapse correction with abdominally placed mesh and to assess the long-term efficacy of Sacrohysteropexy and Sacrocolpopexy. Method: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Aga Khan University Hospital. All women who underwent apical prolapse surgery using abdominal mesh from January 2010 to December 2019 at AKUH were included. Patients with missing routine follow up visits and incomplete data up to one year post op were excluded. Patient notes were reviewed, and subjective and objective success and complications were analyzed. Safety was measured by incidence of intra, early and late postoperative complications and mesh-related complications of both procedures at two weeks, six months, twelve months, postoperatively. Results: A total of 69 cases were retrieved from the database with a mean age of 46.97 ± 13.86 years. It was found that 14 (20.3%) patients had wound infection while six (8.7%) patients developed urinary tract infections. In a median follow-up of 12 months, three patients developed mesh erosion as a complication, with an incidence of 4.3%. Two required surgical excision of the mesh and the third was successfully managed conservatively with topical estrogen and oral antibiotics. Extremely significant improvements were observed in POPDI-six scores six months postoperatively (p=0.0001). Conclusion: The present study signifies the use of abdominally placed mesh in patients with pelvic organ prolapse indicating significant improvement in Pelvic Organ Prolapse-associated symptoms postoperatively.

Abdominal Sacrohysteropexy using Proline mesh versus Mersilene tape in apical prolapse: A randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: uterine preservation is increasingly a common demand in surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Using Proline mesh in surgical repair of prolapse may have negative drawbacks. OBJECTIVE: compare between using Polyproline mesh and Mersilene tape in abdominal Sacrohysteropexy repairing apical prolapse stage ӀӀ or more. STUDY DESIGN: This RCT study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Menoufia and Ain Shams university hospitals, Egypt). Eligible population included women planned Sacrohysteropexy for uterine prolapse ≥ stage 2 assigned to two groups: Mesh group (n = 38), underwent Sacrohysteropexy with polyproline mesh, and Tape group (n = 38), underwent Sacrohysteropexy using Mersilene tape. RESULTS: High statistically significant difference between TAPE group and MESH group concerning hysteropexy time was 50.4 min in TAPE group vs 90.6 min in MESH group (p < 0.001), need for post operative analgesia was14 in TAPE group vs 27 in MESH group (p < 0.005). The mean hospital stay was 2.8 days in TAPE group vs 5.2days in MESH group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using Mersilene tape in Sacrohysteropexy is a safe alternative to Polyproline Mesh with comparable efficacy with less complications. Tape is easier as it needs less dissection area for sacral fixation so less injury incidence.

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy as treatment for uterine descent: comparison of long-term outcomes.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a frequent occurring health issue, especially concerning elderly women. The objective of this study is to examine the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) for treatment of uterine prolapse. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent a LSH or SSHP. Validated questionnaires and an outpatient examination visit were used to investigate the effects of both surgical treatments. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of success for the apical compartment, defined as no recurrence of uterine prolapse (POP-Q measurement C ≤ 0), no subjective recurrence of POP, and/or not requiring therapy for recurrent prolapse. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative data, anatomical failure, prolapse beyond hymen, subjective outcomes, and disease-specific quality of life. RESULTS: We included 105 patients, 53 in the LSH group and 52 in the SSHP group. The overall response rate of the questionnaires was 83% (n = 87) after a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years (54.2 months; 95% CI 44.8-64.2 months) in the LSH group and 2.5 years (30.1 months; 95% CI 29.3-31.5 months) in the SSHP group. There were no clinically relevant differences between the study groups in composite outcome of success (p = 0.073), anatomical failure of the apical compartment (p = 0.711), vaginal bulge symptoms for which patients consulted professionals (p = 0.126), and patient satisfaction (p = 0.741). The operative time was longer in the LSH group (117 min; interquartile range (IQR) 110-123) compared to the SSHP group (67 minutes; IQR 60-73) (p < 0.001). The duration of hospital stay was also longer in the LSH group (4 days) than in the SSHP group (3 days) (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: LSH and SSHP seem to be equally effective after long-term follow-up in treating uterine prolapse in terms of objective and subjective recurrence.

Outcomes of sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy with mesh placement targeted to affected compartment.

OBJECTIVE: No recommendation regarding the number of meshes to be implanted in laparoscopic genital prolapse surgery exists. Is it necessary to implant a mesh into a compartment that is not affected to prevent its prolapse in the follow-up? Our objective was to compare the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy according to compartments where mesh was implanted. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of 328 patients after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at our centre in 7/2005 - 3/2021. 294 patients with perioperative data and POP-Q and/or prolapse symptoms in mean follow-up of 42.8 months was available for the outcome analysis. Surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond hymen, subjective recurrence or retreatment. The women were divided into four groups depending on compartments, where the mesh was implanted. Group A - anterior, group P - posterior, Group AP - compound of patients with anterior or posterior single arm mesh placement and (B), with anterior and posterior arm placement. Groups AP and B were compared for feasibility of single compartment mesh implantation. Comparison of groups A and P allowed assessment of non-inferiority of single anterior vs. posterior compartment placement. The data were compared using Wilcoxon Two Sample test, Chi-square test or Fishers Exact test, p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A single compartment mesh implantation was associated with shorter operating time and hospital stay and comparable incidence of complications. A statistically significant difference in all POP-Q points in favour of group B was observed, however, with comparable rate of prolapse beyond hymen(6.3%AP vs. 7.8%B). Similar frequency of surgical failure (17.5%AP vs. 13.8%B) and incidence of de novo pelvic floor disorders or pain was observed. Comparison of groups A and P showed higher suspension of point C in group P(-2.6 vs. -4.0, p < 0.05) with no difference in points Ba, Bp, surgical failure rate and de novo pelvic floor disorders. CONCLUSION: Implantation of a single sheet of mesh was not associated with inferior outcome to implantation of mesh to both compartments. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a single mesh arm placed into the affected compartment along with apical suspension does not induce a de novo prolapse in unoperated compartment.

Laparoscopic synthetic mesh explantation after sacrohysteropexy.

INTRODUCTION: In this video, we present a case of rectal and bladder injury, which occurred during laparoscopic mesh removal following sacrohysteropexy treated 6 months later with a laparoscopic pectopexy. METHODS: We present the case of a 66-year-old woman with a prolapse recurrence after sacrohysteropexy. During the laparoscopic explantation of the mesh, we detected a fixation of the mesh to the bladder and the rectum rather than a fixation to the vaginal walls. Consequently, bladder and rectal injuries occurred during the dissection and were diagnosed and repaired immediately. Due to bowel injury, the treatment of the prolapse was postponed. Six months later, a laparoscopic pectopexy was performed to avoid complications during the repeated dissection of the promontory. The postoperative recovery after the pectopexy was uncomplicated with no short-term prolapse recurrence or postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy appears to be an efficient approach to mesh explantation. Futhermore, laparoscopic pectopexy seems to be a good approach to secondary prolapse reconstruction after sacrohysteropexy mesh explantation avoiding complications during repeated dissection of the promontory.

Urinary and sexual impact of pelvic reconstructive surgery for genital prolapse by surgical route. A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The main objective of the study was to evaluate the rates of de novo stress urinary (SUI) and postoperative dyspareunia after both sacrocolpopexy/hysteropexy (SCP) and vaginal mesh surgery. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label study with two parallel groups treated by either SCP or Uphold Lite vaginal mesh was carried out. Study participants were ≥ 50 and < 80 years old patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage ≥2 who were considered eligible for reconstructive surgery and who were sexually active with no dyspareunia and free from bothersome SUI at presentation. Women were assessed before surgery and at 4-8 weeks and 11-13 months after using validated measures including POP-Q, Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). Data were also collected for health economics evaluation. RESULTS: Of the required sample of 156 women, 42 women (19 SCP and 23 vaginal mesh) were only recruited owing to the discontinuation of vaginal mesh worldwide. The median follow-up was 376 days. The rates of bothersome de novo SUI were similar in the SCP and Uphold vaginal mesh groups (15.79 vs 15.00%, OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.22-4.14]). Among 30 sexually active patients at follow-up, the rates of women reporting de novo dyspareunia "usually or always" were 6.7% after SCP vs 13.3% after vaginal mesh (p = 1). Health economics evaluation showed a cost saving of 280€ in favor of the Uphold vaginal mesh technique, but no significant difference in the total cost (2,934.97€ for SCP vs 3,053.26€ for Uphold vaginal mesh). CONCLUSIONS: Bothersome de novo SUI and de novo dyspareunia occurred in approximately 15% and 23% of our study cohorts, with no significant difference between sacrocolpopexy/hysteropexy and anterior/apical vaginal mesh surgery. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to the small sample size.

The Manchester procedure combined with laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy by retroperitoneal tunneling

This video will demonstrate a minimally invasive technique, in which the Manchester procedure was combined with laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy by retroperitoneal tunneling in patients with uterine prolapse and cervical elongation who wished to preserve the uterus. The principle steps and techniques to complete the operation are dictated in the video. The prolapse surgery was performed uneventfully, and the uterus was restored to its anatomical position. During the two years of follow-up, there were no complications from the prolapse or mesh-related events. No prolapse recurrence was observed. This technique facilitates uterine-sparing surgery, results in less bleeding and shorter operative time, and we believe that it may reduce the recurrence of prolapse due to the elongation of the cervix.

Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and ventral rectopexy (LVR) with mesh are advocated for surgical treatment of pelvic and rectal prolapse. Our study aims at showing the feasibility of concomitant laparoscopic prolapse repair by comparing perioperative and long-term outcomes of LSH or LSC with and without LVR. METHODS: This is a retrospective study carried out on 348 women operated on between July 2009 and July 2019. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) LSH only, (2) LSC only, (3) LSH + LVR and (4) LSC + LVR. POP-Q scores and satisfaction questionnaires were recorded at baseline and then annually. Outcomes were defined as subjective failure (vaginal/rectal prolapse symptoms), objective failure (prolapse to/beyond the hymen, full thickness rectal prolapse) or retreatment for prolapse. Complications were collected and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-eight women underwent laparoscopic repair for pelvic and rectal prolapse (219, 44, 66 and 19 in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 (4-174) months. Success rate for both rectal and pelvic prolapse was 90.2%. Recurrence rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.3%, 6.8%, 9.1% and 10.5% for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Significant improvement was noticed in satisfaction questionnaires in all groups. There was no difference in perioperative and late complications. CONCLUSION: The combined laparoscopic procedure appears to be safe and efficient in treating pelvic and rectal prolapse. Appropriate patient selection and available surgical expertise should determine whether to perform these procedures combined or separately.