Search

The average lifespan has increased over time due to improvements in quality of life, leading to an aging population that stays healthy for longer. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP), whether uterine or vaginal, is a problem that severely impairs quality of life and imposes significant restrictions. The present study provides the reader with a summary of the many surgical techniques used in POP surgery, comparing international guidelines, offering an algorithm that is simple to understand, and allows the reader to quickly choose the table that includes the best surgical therapy for each individual. Using relevant keywords, the writers searched the PubMed and Scopus databases for relevant publications from 2000 to April 2023. Studies with cases of oncologic disorders or prior hysterectomy performed for another reason were not included in the analysis. Ten distinct international guidelines are highlighted and examined in the present study. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II-S (AGREE II-S) method to assess their quality, and incorporated the results into the conclusion. Worldwide, anterior colporrhaphy is the preferred method of treating anterior compartment abnormalities, and mesh is virtually always used when recurrence occurs (which happens in about half of the cases). Worldwide, posterior colporrhaphy is commonly used to repair posterior compartment abnormalities. Only a few national guidelines (the Iranian guideline, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica [AOGS], and the German-speaking countries) permit the use of mesh or xenograft in cases of recurrence. There is agreement on the abdominal approach (sacrocolpopexy) with mesh for treating apical deformities. Sacrospinous-hysteropexy is the standard method used to guide the vaginal approach; mesh is typically used to aid in this process. There are just three recommendations that do not include vaginal operations: HSE, AOGS, and Iran. Of obliteration techniques, colpocleisis is unquestionably the best. In conclusion, our analysis highlights the significance of customized methods in POP surgery, taking into account the requirements and preferences of each patient. To choose the best surgical therapy, criteria and patient features must be carefully considered., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Objective: To compare objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy (L-SCP) and robotic sacral hysteropexy (R-SHP)., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective propensity score matched study. In the period between January 2014 and December 2018, we enrolled 161 patients with apical prolapse stage 2 or above, alone or with multicompartment descensus., Results: After propensity-match analysis, there were 44 women for each group. Patients of the two groups had similar preoperative characteristics. No difference was found in terms of estimated blood loss, hospital stay, operative time, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. Subjective success rate, 12 months after surgery, was statistically better in the L-SCP group (P = 0.034): 81.8% and 97.8% women had Patient Global Impression of Improvement scores less than 3, in R-SHP and L-SCP, respectively. The objective cure rate was high in both groups without any significant differences in recurrence rate (P = 0.266)., Conclusion: Both procedures are safe and effective in pelvic organ prolapse treatment. Patients who no longer desire uterine preservation could be encouraged to consider L-SCP. R-SHP is an alternative in women who are strongly motivated to preserve their uterus in the absence of abnormal uterine findings., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Introduction and Hypothesis: The choice of whether or not to preserve the uterus in the case of patients with urogenital prolapse who undergo sacral colpopexy is still debated. We compared objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy (LSHP) and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy (LSCP/SCH) in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted at the Urogynecology Department of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS of Rome and at the Diaconesses Croix Saint Simon Hospital of Paris. We collected data of 136 patients; 78 underwent LSHP and 58 underwent LSCP/SCH for pelvic organ prolapse between January 2016 and December 2017., Results: Patients of the two groups had similar preoperative characteristics. All patients completed 24-month follow-up evaluation. Overall, anatomical cure rate was 84.6% and 87.9% in the LSHP group and LSCP/SCH group, respectively, without statistically significant differences. In particular, in the LSHP group the anatomical success rate was 94.9%, 92.3% and 92.3% for the apical, anterior and posterior vaginal compartment whereas in the LSHP group LSCP/SCH was 100%, 91.4% and 94.8%, respectively. Subjective success rate was 89.7% among patients who underwent LSHP and 93.1% among women who underwent LSCP/SCH (p = 0.494). The median operative time (OT) was significantly shorter in LSHP. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of estimated blood loss, conversion to laparotomy and intra- and postoperative complications. Patients' satisfaction was high in both groups without statistical differences., Conclusions: Both laparoscopic procedures are safe and effective in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. LSHP can be offered as an alternative in women who are strongly motivated to preserve the uterus in the absence of abnormal uterine findings., (© 2021. The International Urogynecological Association.)

It has been stated that the effectiveness of pectopexy method for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is similar to sacrocolpopexy. We aimed to search the effects of pectopexy method to the quality of life, sexual function and urinary incontinence. Thirty-one patients who were operated for POP with the technique of laparoscopic pectouteropexy/pectocolpopexy between January 2016 and November 2017 were included the study. Exclusion criteria were pelvic inflammatory disease, suspect of malignancy, pregnancy, prior POP or continence surgery. Quality of life inventories were (P-QOL, PISQ-12, UDI-6, IIQ-7) recorded preoperatively and at the postoperative third month. Results were compared statistically. The percentage of patients with menopause was 67.7% (n=21) and with reproductive term was 32.3% (n=10). Mean prolapse related quality of life inventory (P-QOL) score was 83.45 ± 8.7 (64-98) preoperatively and 8.61 ± 6.4 (0-23) postoperatively (p<0.05). The preoperative and postoperative score of quality of life inventories for urinary symptoms were 20 (15-21) and 2 (0-9) for IIQ-7 and 13 (3-18) and 4 (0-11) for UDI-6, respectively (p<0.05). The mean PISQ-12 sexual quality of life inventory score was 29.61 ± 4.8 (14-38) preoperatively and 7.1 ± 3.2 (1-13) postoperatively. According to our results laparoscopic pectopexy offers a feasible, safe and comfortable alternative for apical prolapse surgery.

Aims: Apical defect is a pelvic organ prolapse disorder, with 5%-15% prevalence. The aim of the study was to investigate methods of laparoscopic repair of apical defect and compare them with other techniques (open, vaginal, and robotic)., Methods: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases using the following key words: apical prolapse and treatment procedures. The search was limited by using the humans filters. Only articles published in English between 2010 and 2018 were considered. Two independent authors reviewed the publications for inclusion on the basis of the following criteria: (a) use of laparoscopic techniques, and (b) apical support loss as indication for surgery., Results: A total of 1002 papers were initially identified; 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four main laparoscopic procedures were found. The reported anatomical success rate (POP-Q < II stage) was 77%-100%, with patient satisfaction for pectopexy, laparoscopic sacropexy (LS), lateral ligament suspension and laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) of 96.4%-97.6%, 71.0%-100%, 66.7%-87.8%, and 95%-95.5%, respectively. Major complications included hemorrhage, bladder, ureter, and/or bowel injuries were rare. Prolapse recurrences after LUSLS and LS were reported in 13.2% and 10.4% of patients, respectively; with reoperation rate for LS 2.2%-12.8%., Conclusions: Most studies reported anatomical and subjective outcomes, with follow-up ranging from 1 month to >7 years. Success rates for laparoscopic and abdominal corrections of apical defect were similar; laparoscopy was superior in terms of perioperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and recovery., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: To report the perioperative adverse events associated with nerve-preserving sacropexy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair and to identify risk factors that could predict possible adverse events., Materials and Methods: A total of 768 women who underwent sacropexy for POP repair performed by one surgeon using the same technique, beyond the learning curve, over a 10-year period, between January 1st 2007 and December 31st 2016., Methods: The medical records of 768 women were reviewed for age, body mass index (BMI), tobacco use, previous surgeries (for POP and incontinence, abdominal surgeries in general), operating time, duration of hospitalization and perioperative events at time of surgery and 6 weeks postoperatively. Additionally, the complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system and the Charlson Age Comorbidity Index (CACI) was evaluated for the patients., Results: Between January 1st 2007 and December 31st 2016, 768 patients underwent sacropexy for POP. 27 (3.5%) adverse events occurred intra- and post-operative within 6 weeks after surgery. In univariate and multivariate analyses, only comorbidity and concomitant posterior colporrhaphy are significantly associated with complications., Conclusions: Surgeon's experience and a standardized technique minimize the risk of perioperative adverse events. The data on complications we found can be used to guide effective consent.

Objective: To assess anatomic outcome and quality of life (QOL) after vaginal sacrocolporectopexy among patients with pelvic organ prolapse., Methods: A noncomparative observational study was conducted at Hanover Medical School, Germany, among patients who underwent vaginal sacrocolporectopexy for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse between May 1, 2006, and October 31, 2012. A validated German version of the Prolapse QOL (P-QOL) questionnaire was sent to eligible patients; respondents were invited for follow-up examination., Results: Overall, 128 patients were enrolled. Concomitant hysterectomy was performed among 82 (64.1%) patients, anterior colporrhaphy among 105 (82.0%), and posterior colporrhaphy among 58 (45.3%). After a mean interval of 26.5 months (range 1.0-81.3 months), seven patients exhibited recurrent vaginal vault prolapse of at least stage 2, giving a success rate of 92.3% (95% confidence interval 85.9%-96.5%). The P-QOL scores were either low (<40) or very low (<20), indicating high QOL. Regarding symptoms related to pelvic organ prolapse, patients reported little or no impact on QOL after vaginal sacrocolporectopexy., Conclusion: Vaginal sacrocolporectopexy seemed safe and feasible, leading to anatomically correct fixation of the vaginal apex, high anatomic success rates, and good QOL. This procedure might be considered as an alternative to laparoscopic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy., (© 2017 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Introduction and Hypothesis: Pelvic organ prolapse shows an increasing prevalence (3-50 %). The gold standard treatment for apical prolapse is sacrocolpopexy, which can be performed via minimal access (conventional laparoscopy or robotic surgery) or open sacrocolpopexy. The objective is to appraise the effectiveness and safety of robotic surgery compared with laparoscopic sacropexy in the treatment of apical prolapse., Methods: Keywords were searched in: CINAHL, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Cochrane MDSG Trials Register, Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Trials Registry Platform search portal, LILACS, and Google Scholar. A hand-search was also performed from IUJ and JMIG. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials evaluating all women who underwent robotic sacropexy (RSC) or laparoscopic sacropexy (LSC) were included. A data extraction tool was used for data collection. RSC was compared with LSC. Narrative analysis and meta-analysis (RevMan) were conducted where appropriate., Results: Nine papers compared RSC with LSC, involving 1,157 subjects. No significant difference was found between approaches for anatomical outcomes, mortality, hospital stay (MD: -0.72/95 % CI 1.72, 0.28], p = 0.16), and postoperative quality of life. However, robotic sacropexy had more postoperative pain and longer operating times, although fewer overall complications when performed concomitantly with hysterectomy (OR 0.35; 95 % CI 0.19-0.64)., Conclusions: Robotic sacropexy was related to more postoperative pain and longer operating times. However, no significant differences were found regarding anatomical outcomes, mortality, hospital stay or postoperative quality of life. Cautious interpretation of results is advised because of the risk of bias caused by the inclusion of non-randomised studies. More research comparing RSC with LSC is mandatory, particularly draw conclusions regarding estimated blood loss and complication rate.

Introduction: and hypothesis. We evaluated different bladder parameters using Transperineal Ultrasound (TPUS) in patients with apical pelvic organ prolapse undergoing lateral suspension or sacropexy. Methods: We included 73 cases with 37 cases in lateral suspension (LS) group and 36 cases in sacropexy group. We enrolled cases with apical prolapse stage 2 or higher according to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q). Evaluation done of all cases using TPUS preoperatively and at 6, 12 and 18 months follow-up visits. Results: In LS group we found significant differences postoperatively in bladder neck height (Dy distance) at Valsalva and rest (P value < 0.001 in both) and in β angle at Valsalva and rest (P value < 0.001 in both). There was significant improvement in PVR (P value < 0.001). In sacropexy group we found no significant differences postoperatively in bladder neck height at Valsalva (P value 0.07) or in β angle at Valsalva (P value 0.097). There was significant improvement in PVR (P value 0.006). In between the 2 groups, there was better improvement in LS group than sacropexy group in bladder neck height at rest (P value 0.001) and in β angle both at Valsalva and rest (P value < 0.001 & 0.002 respectively). There was no significant difference in PVR, bladder wall thickness or bladder neck funnelling. Conclusion: LS and sacropexy showed good postoperative improvement in some bladder parameters using TPUS with better improvement in bladder neck height in LS. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical trial ID: NCT03772691. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite the increasing success of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, recurrent vaginal vault prolapse is not rare. We present a step-by-step laparoscopic approach with a sacral colpopexy (SC) for treatment of recurrent vault prolapse. Materials and Methods: From 2006, 25 women presenting with symptomatic recurrent vault prolapse were prospectively evaluated and treated with laparoscopic SC. This article briefly describes all of the steps that are required to conduct a proper surgery in such cases. Results: After previous abdominal sacropexy, both the dissection of adherences and restoration of normal pelvic anatomy were challenging. As result, the overall operating time was longer in patients who had undergone abdominal sacropexy vs. vaginal route, p = 0.032. No significant peri- or postoperative complications were observed. At a mean follow-up of 41 months, all women presented with less than stage 2 prolapse and high levels of satisfaction. Conclusions: Despite the need for an intraoperative step-by-step surgical safety checklist, the laparoscopic repair of recurrent vault prolapse is technically feasible, safe and effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]