The case for conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the treatment of choice for pelvic organ prolapse

Objective: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC)/laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) at 1-year follow-up for female pelvic-organ prolapse (POP).

Patients and methods: In all, 52 patients were included and underwent LSC/LSH in the Eldemerdash Hospital, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. All patients with POP, with Grade ≥II of any anatomical site (anterior, posterior or combined) who were medically fit for general anaesthesia, were included in the study. Patients with previous major abdominal surgery, a body mass index (BMI) of >40 kg/m² or un-correctable bleeding diatheses, were excluded. Preoperative data, peri- and postoperative functional and anatomical outcomes were assessed. The patients were followed-up at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperatively.

Results: Pre- and postoperative data were available for the 52 patients operated on for POP. The subjective cure rate was 92.3% and the objective cure rate was 98.1%. Failure was defined as recurrence of Grade ≥II POP.

Conclusion: LSC/LSH is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of female POP due to its durable results and low rates of complications with high objective and subjective cure rates.

Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; (RA)LSC: (robot-assisted) laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy; LSH: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy; PFDI-20: Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory; PFIQ-7: Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire; POP: pelvic-organ prolapse; QoL: quality of life; SUI: stress urinary incontinence; TVM: total transvaginal mesh; VVP: vaginal vault prolapse