Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term development of surgical outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with anterior and posterior mesh extension

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Long-term durability and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) remains to be confirmed. We set out to assess the development of surgical outcome in women with increasing minimal follow-up.

Methods

All women after LSH with anterior and posterior mesh extension operated for advanced apical uterine prolapse at Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire clinic from July 2005 to June 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Last known follow-up information was used for the analysis and allocation into groups. The surgical success was defined as no prolapse beyond hymen, no symptomatic recurrence or no retreatment. Functional outcome was evaluated from validated questionnaires and presence of pelvic floor disorders. The outcomes were compared with preoperative state using chi-square and Fisher’s test; p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

In total, 270 patients after LSH with a follow-up of up to 14.5 years were enrolled and divided into groups according to their last follow-up length: ≥ 1 year 242, ≥ 3 years 112, ≥ 5 years 76, ≥ 7 years 45 and ≥ 10 years 18 women. Increase of minimal follow-up was associated with gradual decrease in surgical success. Rates of stress urinary incontinence were unchanged by the surgery, while anal incontinence and constipation rates decreased significantly; 14.5% of women were operated on for SUI in the follow-up. The PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and VAS bother scores decreased significantly regardless of minimal follow-up length.

Conclusions

LSH with anterior and posterior mesh extension is a safe, effective and durable surgery with a positive long-term effect on quality of life. Although the surgical success gradually decreases, LSH remains a surgical success in most women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3
Graph 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fritel X, Varnoux N, Zins M, Breart G, Ringa V. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse at midlife, quality of life, and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(3):609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(6):1278–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Khan AA, Eilber KS, Clemens JQ, Wu N, Pashos CL, Anger JT. Trends in management of pelvic organ prolapse among female Medicare beneficiaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):463. e461–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lin Y-L, Lo T-S, Long C-Y, Law K-S, Ho C-H, Wu M-P. Time-frame comparison of hystero-preservation in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: a population-based nation-wide follow-up descriptive study, 2006–2013 versus 1997–2005. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(9):1839–50

  5. Van IJsselmuiden MN, Detollenaere RJ, Gerritse MB, Kluivers KB, Bongers MY, van Eijndhoven HW. Dutch women’s attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;220:79–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ng-Stollmann N, Fünfgeld C, Gabriel B, Niesel A. The international discussion and the new regulations concerning transvaginal mesh implants in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):1997–2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04407-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(11):1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, Slack M, Scott P, Waterfield M. A randomised 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1885-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lucot JP, Cosson M, Verdun S, Debodinance P, Bader G, Campagne-Loiseau S, Salet-Lizee D, Akladios C, Ferry P, De Tayrac R. Long-term outcomes of primary cystocele repair by transvaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy: extended follow up of the PROSPERE multicentre randomised trial. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;129(1):127–37

  10. Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Zucchi A, Di Biase M, Del Zingaro M, Bini V, Costantini E. Sacrocolpopexy for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(10):1563–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-2998-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Meriwether KV, Balk EM, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, Kim-Fine S, Murphy M, Grimes CL, Sleemi A, Singh R, Dieter AA. Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):505–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2069–74

  13. Gagyor D, Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z, Pilka R, Ismail KM. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study). BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01208-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brizzolara S, Pillai-Allen A. Risk of mesh erosion with sacral colpopexy and concurrent hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(2):306–10.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wu JM, Wells EC, Hundley AF, Connolly A, Williams KS, Visco AG. Mesh erosion in abdominal sacral colpopexy with and without concomitant hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1418–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sarlos D, Kots L, Ryu G, Schaer G. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1207–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, Fine P, Menefee S, Ridgeway B, Visco A. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Grinstein E, Abdelkhalek Y, Veit-Rubin N, Gluck O, Deval B. Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;33(2):343–50

  19. Gluck O, Blaganje M, Deval B. How i do… laparoscopic ventral rectopexy using a synthetic mesh. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019;47(10):753–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Barber M, Walters M, Bump R. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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. 2003;14(3):164–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jorge JM, Wexner S. Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36(1):77–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050307.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, Rumolo V, Caramazza D, Lombisani A, Rossitto C, Gadonneix P, Scambia G, Ercoli A. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;33(2):359–68.

  25. Izett-Kay ML, Aldabeeb D, Kupelian AS, Cartwright R, Cutner AS, Jackson S, Price N, Vashisht A. Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(12):2595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04396-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Izett-Kay ML, Rahmanou P, Cartwright RJ, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6.

  27. Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Karjalainen PK, Mattsson NK, Jalkanen JT, Nieminen K, Tolppanen A-M. Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for PFDI-20 and POPDI-6 in POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04513-z.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank to ing. Stanislav Kormunda for statistical analyses and Meriem Tsuria and Romain Lepaulmier for their help with contacting patients for telephonic follow-up.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic

    Zdenek Rusavy

  2. Department of Functional Pelvic Surgery & Oncology, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Ramsay, Générale de Santé, Paris, France

    Zdenek Rusavy, Ehud Grinstein, Ohad Gluck, Yara Abdelkhalek & Bruno Deval

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel, affiliated with Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Ehud Grinstein & Ohad Gluck

Authors
  1. Zdenek Rusavy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ehud Grinstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ohad Gluck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yara Abdelkhalek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bruno Deval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z Rusavy: Project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing,

Y Abdelkhalek: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript editing.

E Grinstein: Data collection, Manuscript editing:

O Gluck: Data collection, Manuscript editing.

B Deval: Protocol development, Data collection, Manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zdenek Rusavy.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1549 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rusavy, Z., Grinstein, E., Gluck, O. et al. Long-term development of surgical outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with anterior and posterior mesh extension. Int Urogynecol J 34, 191–200 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05102-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05102-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation