Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2017 | Original Article

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial

Authors: Anne-Lotte W. M. Coolen, Anique M. J. van Oudheusden, Ben Willem J. Mol, Hugo W. F. van Eijndhoven, Jan-Paul W. R. Roovers, Marlies Y. Bongers

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 10/2017

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective was to evaluate the functional outcome after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus open sacrocolpopexy in women with vault prolapse.

Methods

A multicentre randomised controlled trial was carried out at four teaching and two university hospitals in the Netherlands in women with symptomatic vault prolapse requiring surgical treatment. Participants were randomised for laparoscopic or open sacrocolpopexy. Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life measured using the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI) questionnaire at 12 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome and perioperative data. We needed 74 participants to show a difference of 10 points on the prolapse domain of the UDI 12 months after surgery (power of 80%, α error 0.05).

Results

Between 2007 and 2012, a total of 74 women were randomised. Follow-up after 12 months showed no significant differences in domain scores of the UDI between the two groups. After 12 months, both groups reported a UDI score of 0.0 (IQR: 0–0) for the domain “genital prolapse”, which was the primary outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.93). The number of severe complications was 4 in the laparoscopic group versus 7 in the open abdominal group (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.50–2.27). There was less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay after laparoscopy; 2 (IQR 2–3) versus 4 (IQR 3–5) days, which was statistically different. There was no significant difference in anatomical outcome at 12 months.

Conclusion

Our trial provides evidence to support a laparoscopic approach when performing sacrocolpopexy, as there was less blood loss and hospital stay was shorter, whereas functional and anatomical outcome were not statistically different.

Dällenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Jacob S, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M. Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1623–9.CrossRefPubMed

Mant J, Painter R, Vessey M. Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford family planning association study. BJOG. 1997;104(5):579–85.CrossRef

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:1–161.

Snyder TE, Krantz KE. Abdominal-retroperitoneal sacral colpopexy for the correction of vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77(6):944–9.PubMed

Timmons MC, Addison WA, Addison SB, Cavenar MG. Abdominal sacral colpopexy in 163 women with posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse and enterocele: evolution of operative techniques. J Reprod Med Obstet Gynecol. 1992;37(4):323–7.

Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5)1089–1105.CrossRefPubMed

Hilger WS, Poulson M, Norton PA. Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(6):1606–10.CrossRefPubMed

Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Parkes IL, Sveiky D. Sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal apical prolapse: evidence based surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(4):546–57.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Khan A, Alperin M, Wu N, Clemens WQ, Dubina E, Pashos CL, et al. Comparative outcomes of open versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy among medicare beneficiaries. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;24:1883–91.CrossRef

12.

Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(5):885–8.PubMed

13.

Claerhout F, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1153–60.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Deprest J, Roovers JP. The challenge of implementing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1153–60.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;24(3):377–84.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1752–8.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Klauschie JL, Suozzi BA, O’Brien MM, McBride AW. A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(3):273–9.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Van der Vaart CH, de Leeuw JR, Roovers JP, Heintz AP. Measuring health-related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: the urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22(2):97–104.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Roovers JP, van der Blom JG, van der Vaart CH. Hysterectomy does not cause constipation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008;51(7):1068–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Srikrishna S, Robinson D. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2010;21:523–8.CrossRef

21.

Chmielewski L, Walters MD. Reanalysis of a randomized trial of 3 techniques of anterior colporrhaphy using clinically relevant definitions of success. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:69.e1–8.CrossRef

22.

Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP. A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;111:50–6.CrossRef

24.

Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R. An international urogynaecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor. 2012;23:527–35.CrossRef

25.

Barber MD, Burbaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial
Authors: Anne-Lotte W. M. Coolen
Anique M. J. van Oudheusden
Ben Willem J. Mol
Hugo W. F. van Eijndhoven
Jan-Paul W. R. Roovers
Marlies Y. Bongers
Publication date: 01-10-2017
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

Laser treatment in urogynaecology and the myth of the scientific evidence

Pelvic organ support several years after a first birth

Choice of mode of delivery in a subsequent pregnancy after OASI: a survey among Dutch gynecologists

A systematic review on vaginal laser therapy for treating stress urinary incontinence: Do we have enough evidence?

Urogynecology digest

Three-dimensional volume rendering of pelvic models and paraurethral masses based on MRI cross-sectional images