Search

Introduction: The issue addressed in this chapter of recommendations is: What is the clinical and para-clinical assessment to achieve in women with genital prolapse and for whom surgical treatment has been decided. What are the clinical elements of the examination that must be taken into account as a risk factor of failure or relapse after surgery, in order to anticipate and evaluate possible surgical difficulties, and to move towards a preferred surgical technique?, Material and Methods: This work is based on a systematic review of the literature (PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Database of Systemactic Reviews, EMBASE) for meta-analyzes, randomized trials, registries, literature reviews, controlled studies and major not controlled studies, published on the subject. Its implementation has followed the methodology of the HAS on the recommendations for clinical practice, with a scientific argument (with the level of evidence, NP) and a recommendation grade (A, B, C, and professional agreement [AP])., Results: It suits first of all to describe prolapse, by clinical examination, helped, if needed, by a supplement of imagery if clinical examination data are insufficient or in case of discrepancy between the functional signs and clinical anomalies found, or in case of doubt in associated pathology. It suits to look relapse risk factors (high grade prolapse) and postoperative complications risk factors (risk factors for prothetic exposure, surgical approach difficulties, pelvic pain syndrome with hypersensitivity) to inform the patient and guide the therapeutic choice. Urinary functional disorders associated with prolapse (urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, dysuria, urinary tract infection, upper urinary tract impact) will be search and evaluated by interview and clinical examination and by a flowmeter with measurement of the post voiding residue, a urinalysis, and renal-bladder ultrasound. In the presence of voiding disorders, it is appropriate to do their clinical and urodynamic evaluation. In the absence of any spontaneous or hidden urinary sign, there is so far no reason to recommend systematically urodynamic assessment. Anorectal symptoms associated with prolapse (irritable bowel syndrome, obstruction of defecation, fecal incontinence) should be search and evaluated. Before prolapse surgery, it is essential not to ignore gynecologic pathology., Conclusion: Before proposing a surgical cure of genital prolapse of women, it suits to achieve a clinical and paraclinical assessment to describe prolapse (anatomical structures involved, grade), to look for recurrence, difficulties approach and postoperative complications risk factors, and to appreciate the impact or the symptoms associated with prolapse (urinary, anorectal, gynecological, pelvic-perineal pain) to guide their evaluation and their treatment. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS., (© 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.)

Introduction: Open sacrocolpopexy have demonstrated its efficiency in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse with an important backward on a large number of patients. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy reproduced the same surgical technique with reduced morbidity and may benefits from the recent development of robotic. Numerous technical variants have been developped around the original procedure but results seems not ever equivalent. Our objectives are to establish practical recommendations issues from the data of the litterature on the various technical aspects of this technique., Methods: This work leans on an exhaustive lecture of the literature concerning meta analyses, randomized tries, registers, controlled studies and the largest non controlled studies published on the subject. Recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary workgroup then reread and amended by an also multidisciplinary group of proofreaders (urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists and surgeons). The methodology follows at best the recommendations of the HAS with a scientific argument for every question (accompanied with the level of proof, NP) and the recommendations, the officers (In, B, C and agreement of experts) and validated at the end of the phase of review., Results: Surgical treatment of uro-genital prolapse by abdominal route classically associated hystero and anterior vaginopexy on the sacral ligament with a synthethic mesh. There are no argument to systematically associated a posterior vaginopexy to prevent secondary rectocele (level C). The consensual indication of laparoscopic rectopexy is represented by symptomatic rectal prolapse, the anatomical and functional results of which are the best estimated (level C). The surgical treatment of rectocele, elytrocele and enterocele with a posterior vaginopexy is not well estimated (level 3). Thus, it is not possible to conclude on the results of a posterior vaginal fixation with a mesh in these indications (AP). In the absence of colpocèle, the interest brought by the posterior vaginal mesh is not established (level 3). There is no comparative studies which allows to conclude on the type and mode of fixation of the prostheses of sacrocolpopexy. We would only report the most common practices without other conclusion. The anterior mesh is usually fixed upper on the anterior part of uterus cervix and lower on the anterior vaginal wall. These fixations are most of the time made by suture and on the promontory with non absorbable suture. The great majority of the authors recommend to make a peritonisation of prostheses to limit the risk of post-operative occlusion. It is now recommended to use only 2 kind of not absorbable prostheses: type I (macroporous polypropylene) or type III (polyester) and not to use any more prostheses type II (PTFE, Silicone) (level C) because of a high rate of mesh erosion: PTFE (9 %) or Silicone (19%) (level 3). Biological prostheses are no more recommended, because of short and medium-term lower anatomical results (level B). Anatomical and functional results are not stastistically differents between laparotomy and coelioscopy (NP1) but the comparison of tong-term results between both ways is not yet established. Coelioscopy allows significant reduction of blood losses, hospital stay and return to normal activity (level 1). Furthemore, there is a higher level of post-operative complications in laparotomy (level 1). When sacrocolpopexy is indicated, coelioscopy is thus recommended (level B). During coelioscopic sacrocolpopexy, anatomical and functional result have not shown any significance difference when using or no a robotics assistance but real randomised studies does not exist (level 2). In comparison to coelioscopy, robotic seems not to improve post-operative consequences and not to decrease the rate of complications of sacrocolpopexy (level 3). Robotic assistance cannot be yet recommended when a coelioscopic sacrocolpopexy is indicated (rank B)., Concusion: Sacrocolpopexy using not absorbable meshes allows to cure pelvic organ prolapses with very good results with few complications in terms of prothetic exposure and infection and thus is now considered as the referent prothetic surgical technique in this indication. Thus, it seems very important to establish clear recommendations on the numerous operating technical variants which developed around the original technique. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS., (© 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.)

Objective: Provide guidelines for clinical practice concerning hysterectomy during surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolaps, with or without mesh., Methods: Systematically review of the literature concerning anatomical and functionnal results of uterine conservation or hysterectomie during surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolaps., Results: Sacrospinous hysteropexy is as effective as vaginal hysterectomy and repair in retrospective comparative studies and in a meta-analysis with reduced operating time, blood loss and recovery time (NP2). However, in a single RCT there was a higher recurrence rate associated with sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy. Sacrospinous hysteropexy with mesh augmentation of the anterior compartment was as effective as hysterectomy and mesh augmentation (NP2), with no significant difference in the rate of mesh exposure between the groups (NP3). Sacral hysteropexy is as effective as sacral colpopexy and hysterectomy in anatomical outcomes; however, the sacral colpopexy and hysterectomy were associated with increase operating time and blood loss (NP1). Performing hysterectomy at sacral colpopexy was associated with a higher risk of mesh exposure compared with sacral colpopexy without hysterectomy (NP3). There is no sufficient data in the literature to affirm that the uterine conservation improve sexual function (NP3)., Conclusion: While uterine preservation is a viable option for the surgical management of uterine prolapse the evidence on safety and efficacy is currently lacking. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS., (© 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.)