This article is published in the forthcoming issue.

Results of the laparoscopic lateral suspension and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy techniques done for uterine prolapse

Comparison of two laparoscopic methods for uterine prolapse

Authors

Keywords:

anatomical improvement, laparoscopic lateral mesh suspension, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, pelvic organ prolapse, sexual function

Abstract

Background/Aim: Sacrocolpopexy is considered the gold-standard surgical treatment for patients with symptomatic uterine prolapse. This technique can be performed using a laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic lateral suspension has emerged as a new alternative pelvic organ prolapse surgery method. This study aims to compare the postoperative anatomical improvement and sexual function outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (Group 1) versus laparoscopic lateral suspension (Group 2) for pelvic organ prolapse at our institution.

Methods: Group 1 consisted of 14 patients, while Group 2 comprised seven patients. Relevant data were collected using the Turkish-validated Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12), A Simple Questionnaire to Screen for Sexual Dysfunction, and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) questionnaires.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of the preoperative stage of uterine prolapse (2.6 (0.8) vs. 2.7 (0.7) [P=0.534]). The postoperative period was significantly longer in Group 1 compared to Group 2 (1,014.7 (348.8) days vs. 598.4 (276.5) days [P=0.013]). In the POP-Q evaluation, point C was measured as -6.6 (1.1) cm in Group 1 and -5.2 (1.5) cm in Group 2, indicating a statistically more proximal location (P=0.037). The total vaginal length was greater in Group 1 than in Group 2, but this difference was not statistically significant (8.7 (1.2) cm vs. 8.1 (1.3) cm, [P=0.343]). There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of uterine prolapse stages and sexual function during the follow-up period.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic lateral suspension is an alternative method for patients with uterine prolapse, offering comparable anatomical and sexual outcomes to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Feb;27(2):165–94. PMID: 26755051

LANE FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962 Jul;20:72-7. doi: 10.1097/00006250-196207000-00009. PMID: 14462011.

Wattiez A, Boughizane S, Alexandre F, Canis M, Mage G, Pouly JL, et al. Laparoscopic procedures for stress incontinence and prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Aug;7(4):317–21. PMID: 7578974

Ichikawa M, Kaseki H, Akira S. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy for treatment of multi-compartmental pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2018 Feb;11(1):15–22. PMID: 29485251

Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, et al. Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. J Urol. 2016;196(1):159–65. PMID: 26780167

Campbell P, Cloney L, Jha S. Abdominal Versus Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016 Aug;71(7):435–42. PMID: 27436178

Dubuisson JB, Chapron C. Laparoscopic Iliac Colpo-Uterine Suspension For the Treatment of Genital Prolapse Using Two Meshes: A New Operative Laparoscopic Approach. J Gynecol Surg. 1998 Jan;14(4):153–9. Available from: http://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/gyn.1998.14.153

Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Lange S, Eperon I, Dubuisson J. Uterus-preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a patient-centred outcome report and video of a continuous series of 245 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Mar;27(3):491–3. PMID: 26476819

Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Gayet-Ageron A, Lange S, Eperon I, Dubuisson J. Patient satisfaction after laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: outcome report of a continuous series of 417 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2017 Nov;28(11):1685–93. PMID: 28417156

Yassa M, Tug N. Uterus-preserving Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension with Mesh Operation in Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Initial Experience in a Single Tertiary Center with a Median 24-Month Follow-up. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2019 Sep;79(9):983–92. PMID: 31523099

Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C. A short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003 Aug;14(3):164–8; discussion 168. PMID: 12955337

Cam C, Sancak P, Karahan N, Sancak A, Celik C, Karateke A. Validation of the short form of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) in a Turkish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Sep;146(1):104–7. PMID: 19573977

Plouffe L. Screening for sexual problems through a simple questionnaire. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Jan 15;151(2):166–9. PMID: 4038584

Wagner L, Chevrot A, Llinares E, Costa P, Droupy S. Long-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a prospective study. Int Urol Nephrol. 2019 May;51(5):795–802. PMID: 30875028

Salamon CG, Lewis CM, Priestley J, Culligan PJ. Sexual function before and 1 year after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1):44-7. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000046. PMID: 24368488.

Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, Caramazza D, Lombisani A, Scambia G, et al. Laparoscopic lateral suspension for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic literature review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Sep;264:318–29. PMID: 34364019

Yang J, He Y, Zhang X, Wang Z, Zuo X, Gao L, Hong L. Robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med. 2021 Mar;9(6):449. PMID: 33850846

Baines G, Price N, Jefferis H, Cartwright R, Jackson SR. Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(9):1475–81. PMID: 31041499

Muffly TM, Diwadkar GB, Paraiso MFR. Lumbosacral osteomyelitis after robot-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Dec;21(12):1569–71. PMID: 20532751

Higgs PJ, Chua HL, Smith ARB. Long term review of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. BJOG. 2005 Aug;112(8):1134–8. PMID: 16045530

Propst K, Tunitsky-Bitton E, Schimpf MO, Ridgeway B. Pyogenic spondylodiscitis associated with sacral colpopexy and rectopexy: report of two cases and evaluation of the literature. Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Jan;25(1):21–31. PMID: 23775373

Vieillefosse S, Thubert T, Dache A, Hermieu JF, Deffieux X. Satisfaction, quality of life and lumbar pain following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: suture vs. tackers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 Apr;187:51–6. PMID: 25748488

Gil Ugarteburu R, Rúger Jiménez L, Rodríguez Villamil L, Blanco Fernández R, González Rodríguez I, Cruceyra Betriú G, et al. Laparoscopic Abdominopexy: Surgery for Vaginal Prolapse. JSLS. 2019 Apr-Jun;23(2):e2019.00012. doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2019.00012. PMID: 31223227; PMCID: PMC6570527.

Vandendriessche D, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Behal H, Cosson M. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy learning curve on operative time, perioperative complications and short term results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015 Aug;191:84–9. PMID: 26094181.

Downloads

Published

2024-02-04

Issue

Section

Research Article

How to Cite

1.
Satır Özel C, Küçükbaş M, Yardımcı OD, Nalbant V, Karateke A. Results of the laparoscopic lateral suspension and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy techniques done for uterine prolapse: Comparison of two laparoscopic methods for uterine prolapse. J Surg Med [Internet]. 2024 Feb. 4 [cited 2024 Feb. 24];8(2):31-5. Available from: https://jsurgmed.com/article/view/7548