Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 4/2019

01-04-2019 | Stress Incontinence | Original Article

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology

Authors: Adnan Orhan, Kemal Ozerkan, Hakan Vuruskan, Gokhan Ocakoglu, Isil Kasapoglu, Bahadir Koşan, Gurkan Uncu

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Numerous studies have found that the short-term results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse are safe and effective. This study evaluates the long-term results of the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy operation between the urology and gynecology branches.

Methods

A prospective study enrolling 206 patients was conducted to evaluate laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as a surgical treatment for vaginal vault prolapse from 2011 to 2014. Two different surgical branches (urology and gynecology) applied laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy to their patients with their own techniques. The long-term results were assessed postoperatively after 4 years by pelvic examinations, including the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q) and quality-of-life assessments using validated questionnaires.

Results

A total of 190 patients (94 urology and 96 gynecology patients) received a full clinical follow-up examination between April 2014–June 2018. Postoperative pelvic organ prolapse recurrence rates in each compartment were similar in both groups during the 4 years; 87.2% of the urology and 86.5% of the gynecology patients had no prolapse in any compartment according to the POP-Q system. The reoperation rate was 5.3% for the urology and 6.2% for the gynecology group. Mesh erosion was detected in two patients in both groups. Three patients responded to local estrogen therapy, and we removed the mesh vaginally in one patient. The subjective cure rate was 89.4% in the urology and 88.5% in the gynecology group after 4 years.

Conclusions

Although different surgical branches perform laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with their own techniques, long-term anatomical and functional results are similar between the branches. From a urogynecological point of view, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a gold standard surgical procedure that can be performed by both urologists and gynecologists with similar long-term outcomes.
Literature
1.
Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in US women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1278.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL. Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979–2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(5):501.e1–7.CrossRef
3.
4.
Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, et al. Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a three-year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(3):235.e1–8.CrossRef
6.
Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):891–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
9.
Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1201.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, et al. Perioperative complications and cost of vaginal, open abdominal, and robotic surgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23:27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD004014.
14.
De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):3–17.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Patel M, O’Sullivan D. Tulikangas PK. A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:223.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:493.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomized controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):377–84.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
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
21.
Kaplan PB, Sut N, Sut HK. Validation, cultural adaptation and responsiveness of two pelvic-floor-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7, in a Turkish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162(2):229–33.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Coolen AWM, Bui BN, Dietz V, Wang R, van Montfoort APA, Mol BWJ, et al. The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(12):1767–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):360.e1–7.CrossRef
24.
Sarlos D, Kots L, Ryu G, Schaer G. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1207–12.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hilger WS, Poulson M, Norton PA. Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1606.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Trabuco EC, Linder BJ, Klingele CJ, Blandon RE, Occhino JA, Weaver AL, et al. Two-year results of Burch compared with midurethral sling with sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(1):31–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Nair R, Nikolopoulos KI, Claydon LS. Clinical outcomes in women undergoing laparoscopic hysteropexy: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;208:71.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Jeon MJ, Jung HJ, Choi HJ, et al. Is hysterectomy or the use of graft necessary for the reconstructive surgery for uterine prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:351.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology
Authors
Adnan Orhan
Kemal Ozerkan
Hakan Vuruskan
Gokhan Ocakoglu
Isil Kasapoglu
Bahadir Koşan
Gurkan Uncu
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-03858-w

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

International Urogynecology Journal 4/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Route of hysterectomy during minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy does not affect postoperative outcomes

IUJ Video

Laparoscopic inguinal ligament suspension: a novel procedure to repair uterine prolapse

Original Article

Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey

Original Article

The symptom of vaginal bulging in nulliparous women aged 25–64 years: a national cohort study

Commentary

Commentary on the paper titled: “Partially absorbable mesh or native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial”

Original Article

Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh