Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pelvic floor surgery: Review

Minimally invasive surgical techniques have become more common in pelvic floor reconstructive urogynaecological surgery, specifically, robotic-assisted pelvic floor surgery. Female pelvic floor anatomy is complex, and some repairs require highly experienced surgical skills that can be gained more easily using robotic-assisted surgery. A common application of the robotic platform in urogynaecological surgeries includes sacrocolpopexy, which has become the gold standard approach in the last decade for the correction of apical prolapse. Additional procedures include sacrohysteropexy, sacrocervicopexy, fistula repair, and complex procedures involving the bladder and other pelvic organs. Despite its increasing use and clear benefit in our field, data in the literature and, in particular, randomised controlled trials are sparse. This review provides an update, incorporating recently published literature and our personal experience in that field.

Surgical Management of Symptomatic Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review objective and subjective success and complications of apical suspensions for symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE (2002-2019) were searched using multiple terms for apical POP surgeries, including comparative studies in French and English.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

From 2,665 records, we included randomized controlled trials and comparative studies of interventions with or without hysterectomy, including abdominal apical reconstruction through open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches and vaginal apical reconstructions. Repairs using transvaginal mesh, off-the-market products, procedures without apical suspension, and follow-up less than 6 months were excluded.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Relative risk (RR) was used to estimate the effect of surgical procedure on each outcome. For each outcome and comparison, a meta-analysis was conducted to pool the RRs when possible. Meta-regression and bias tests were performed when appropriate. The GRADE (Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system for quality rating and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting were used. Sixty-two articles were included in the review (N=22,792) and 50 studies in the meta-analyses. There was heterogeneity in study quality, techniques used, and outcomes reported. Median follow-up was 1-5 years. Vaginal suspensions showed higher risk of overall and apical anatomic recurrence compared with sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.74 and RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.33-5.50) (moderate), whereas minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy showed less overall and posterior anatomic recurrence compared with open sacrocolpopexy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.75 and RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80, respectively) (low). Different vaginal approaches, and hysterectomy and suspension compared with hysteropexy had similar anatomic success. Subjective POP recurrence, reintervention for POP recurrence and complications were similar between most procedures.

CONCLUSION

Despite variations in anatomic outcomes, subjective outcomes and complications were similar for apical POP procedures at 1-5 years. Standardization of outcome reporting and comparative studies with longer follow-up are urgently needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019133869.

Directive clinique no 413 : Traitement chirurgical du prolapsus génital apical chez les femmes

OBJECTIF

Comparer les taux de réussite et de complications des interventions de suspension apicale pour le traitement du prolapsus symptomatique de l'utérus ou du dôme vaginal.

POPULATION CIBLE

Les femmes présentant un prolapsus symptomatique de l'utérus ou du dôme vaginal qui souhaitent obtenir un traitement chirurgical.

OPTIONS

Les interventions abordées sont les méthodes reconstructives apicales par voie abdominale (colposacropexie, hystérosacropexie ou hystéropexie avec suspension aux ligaments utéro-sacrés) par chirurgie ouverte, laparoscopique ou robotisée; les méthodes reconstructives apicales par voie vaginale (suspension du dôme vaginal ou hystéropexie, sacrospinofixation, suspension aux ligaments utéro-sacrés, suspension au muscle ilio-coccygien, culdoplastie de McCall ou amputation du col [technique de Manchester]); et les interventions vaginales oblitérantes (avec ou sans utérus in situ). Les interventions individuelles ou les grandes catégories d'interventions ont été comparées : (1) reconstruction par voie vaginale versus abdominale, (2) interventions reconstructives par voie abdominale, (3) interventions reconstructives par voie vaginale, (4) reconstruction par hystérectomie avec suspension par comparaison à la reconstruction par hystéropexie et (5) options reconstructives versus oblitérantes. RéSULTATS: Le comité d'urogynécologie a sélectionné les résultats cliniques suivants : échec objectif (obtenu par des systèmes validés de quantification du prolapsus génital et défini comme un échec global objectif et un taux d'échec par compartiment); échec subjectif (réapparition de la sensation de protubérance déterminée subjectivement, avec ou sans l'utilisation d'un questionnaire validé); réopération pour un prolapsus génital récidivé; complications postopératoires de troubles mictionnels (incontinence urinaire d'effort de novo ou postopératoire; réopération d'une incontinence urinaire d'effort de novo, persistante ou récidivée; incontinence urinaire par urgenturie; et dysfonction mictionnelle); lésion des voies urinaires détectée en périopératoire (vessie ou uretère); autres complications (exposition prothétique, définie comme un treillis visible et exposé dans le vagin et une douleur pelvienne non sexuelle); et fonction sexuelle (dyspareunie de novo et score de la fonction sexuelle d'après un questionnaire validé). BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: Cette directive clinique sera bénéfique pour les patientes qui souhaitent obtenir une correction chirurgicale du prolapsus génital apical en améliorant les conseils sur les options de traitement chirurgical et les résultats cliniques possibles. La directive sera également utile pour les fournisseurs de soins chirurgicaux en améliorant leurs connaissances sur diverses méthodes chirurgicales. Les données présentées pourraient servir à élaborer des cadres et des outils pour la prise de décision partagée. DONNéES PROBANTES: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) et Embase pour des articles publiés entre 2002 et 2019. Les termes de recherche étaient nombreux et portaient sur les interventions de correction du prolapsus génital apical, les voies d'abord et les complications. Nous avons exclu les reconstructions par treillis transvaginal et les études comparant les interventions sans suspension apicale. Nous avons inclus des essais cliniques randomisés et des études comparatives prospectives ou rétrospectives. Nous avons limité nos recherches aux articles publiés en anglais ou en français dont le texte intégral était accessible. Une revue systématique des articles avec méta-analyse a ensuite été effectuée. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteures ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la force des recommandations en utilisant lecadre méthodologique d'évaluation, de développement et d'évaluation (GRADE). Voir l'annexe A en ligne (tableau A1 pour les définitions et tableau A2 pour l'interprétation des recommandations fortes et faibles).

PROFESSIONNELS CIBLES

Gynécologues, urologues, urogynécologues et autres fournisseurs de soins de santé qui évaluent, conseillent et soignent des femmes ayant un prolapsus génital. DÉCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES: Toutes les déclarations font référence à la correction du prolapsus génital apical à court et à moyen terme (jusqu'à 5 ans), sauf indication contraire. RECOMMANDATIONS.

Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

OBJECTIVE

To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

TARGET POPULATION

Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction.

OPTIONS

Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options.

OUTCOMES

The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire).

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.

EVIDENCE

We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The paucity of long-term safety and efficacy data to support laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy is noteworthy given concerns about the use of polypropylene mesh in pelvic floor surgery. This study is aimed at determining the incidence of mesh-associated complications and reoperation following this procedure.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional postal questionnaire study of women who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy between 2010 and 2018. Potential participants were identified from surgical databases of five surgeons at two tertiary urogynaecology centres in the UK. The primary outcome was patient-reported mesh complication requiring removal of hysteropexy mesh. Secondary outcomes included other mesh-associated complications, reoperation rates and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) in prolapse symptoms. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used.

RESULTS

Of 1,766 eligible participants, 1,121 women responded (response proportion 63.5%), at a median follow-up of 46 months. The incidence of mesh complications requiring removal of hysteropexy mesh was 0.4% (4 out of 1,121). The rate of chronic pain service use was 1.8%, and newly diagnosed systemic autoimmune disorders was 5.8%. The rate of reoperation for apical prolapse was 3.7%, and for any form of pelvic organ prolapse it was 13.6%. For PGI-I, 81.4% of patients were "much better" or "very much better".

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy has a low incidence of reoperation for mesh complications and apical prolapse, and a high rate of patient-reported improvement in prolapse symptoms. With appropriate clinical governance measures, the procedure offers an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension. However, long-term comparative studies are still required.

Uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence using robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Case report

INTRODUCTION

To report a case of uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

The patient is a 42-year old Caucasian woman with pelvic organ prolapse. She previously had undergone a pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal surgical approach, she had suffered from anorexia nervosa and she had two childbirths with vaginal deliveries. The woman was treated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and retropubic colposuspension.

DISCUSSION

Data suggest that abdominal surgery, typically with an abdominal sacralcolpopexy, provides better objective anatomic outcomes, than vaginal procedures, despite the longer operating times and grater delay in the resumption of activities which can be mitigated by the use of laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Several studies about vaginal approaches suggest that uterus-preserving surgery with vaginal procedures have similar success rates, less blood loss and shorter surgical time compared with hysterectomy. A multicenter study compared laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with vaginal mesh hysteropexy reported similar one-year cure rates, improvement in pelvic floor symptoms, improvement in sexual function, and satisfaction rates.

CONCLUSION

We found robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy to be a feasible and successful procedure. Combining robotic retropubic colposuspension to sacrohysteropexy is a safe and efficient approach for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. Further studies are needed to define the standard surgical steps and confirm the efficacy and the advantages of this procedure.

Joint Report on Terminology for Surgical Procedures to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are common, but standardization of surgical terms is needed to improve the quality of investigation and clinical care around these procedures. The American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecologic Association convened a joint writing group consisting of 5 designees from each society to standardize terminology around common surgical terms in POP repair including the following: sacrocolpopexy (including sacral colpoperineopexy), sacrocervicopexy, uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament fixation, iliococcygeus fixation, uterine preservation prolapse procedures or hysteropexy (including sacrohysteropexy, uterosacral hysteropexy, sacrospinous hysteropexy, anterior abdominal wall hysteropexy, Manchester procedure), anterior prolapse procedures (including anterior vaginal repair, anterior vaginal repair with graft, and paravaginal repair), posterior prolapse procedures (including posterior vaginal repair, posterior vaginal repair with graft, levator plication, and perineal repair), and obliterative prolapse repairs (including colpocleisis with hysterectomy, colpocleisis without hysterectomy, and colpocleisis of the vaginal vault). Each of these terms is clearly defined in this document including the required steps of the procedure, surgical variations, and recommendations for procedural terminology.

Safety and efficacy of non-absorbable mesh in contemporary gynaecological surgery

Mesh-augmented pelvic floor surgery evolved to address the limitations of native tissue repair in reconstructive surgery. The development of the synthetic mid-urethral tape signalled a revolution in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence, whilst the use of mesh in abdominal apical prolapse repair may confer benefits over native tissue alternatives. However, these procedures can be associated with mesh-specific complications, underlining the need for shared decision-making between physicians and patients prior to mesh surgery.

Transvaginal non-absorbable mesh implants for pelvic organ prolapse are associated with a high risk of serious adverse events, leading to withdrawal or restricted use in many countries. Increased scrutiny has led to growing concerns about complications associated with all types of mesh-augmented reconstructive surgery, attracting widespread media attention.

National and international reports have been commissioned examining the safety and efficacy of mesh surgery in gynaecology. They have all highlighted systemic failures in the development, regulation and clinical adoption of medical devices. The widespread application of novel devices prior to the availability of reliable safety and efficacy data, and delayed recognition of adverse events, is of serious concern. Notwithstanding, the available data continue to support a role for mesh augmentation. This review outlines the evolution of gynaecological mesh, the safety and efficacy of pelvic floor surgery using non-absorbable mesh materials, and an overview of specific complications.

Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse

OBJECTIVE

To compare laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or sacrohysteropexy (LSH) with vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation (VSSLF) for middle compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

Data were retrospectively reviewed from patients with POP (stage 3 or worse) who underwent LSC, LSH, or VSSLF at a center in Shanghai between January 2009 and March 2014. POP quantification (POP-Q) and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory scores were compared at the 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Data were available for the 2-year follow-up for 102 LSC, 11 LSH, and 94 VSSLF procedures. Compared with patients who had undergone VSSLF, those who had undergone LSC/LSH had better POP-Q C values (P<0.001), longer total vaginal length (TVL) (P<0.001), and lower Aa and Ba scores (P=0.003 and P=0.002, respectively). Apical compartment and overall success rates of LSC/LSH and VSSLF did not differ significantly. Quality of life was improved in both groups (P<0.001). Both groups achieved symptomatic relief, although bowel and urinary functions were significantly improved only in the VSSLF group (P<0.001 for both). More patients in the LSC/LSH group were sexually active at 2 years (P<0.001); improvement in sex life was similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Although LSC/LSH achieved longer TVL, both groups achieved the same success rate and improvement in quality of life. Specifically, VSSLF yielded a significant improvement in bowel and urinary function.

Pneumothorax After Laparoscopic Robotic-Assisted Supracervical Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy

We present a case of a patient in whom subcutaneous emphysema, pneumoperitoneum, and pneumothorax occurred on postoperative day 1 after robotic-assisted supracervical hysterectomy, bilateral salpingectomy, sacrocolpopexy, and retropubic midurethral sling placement for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. This case demonstrates a rare complication of gynecologic laparoscopic procedures.

Long-term follow-up and quality of life after robot assisted sacrohysteropexy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of robot assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (RALS), with preservation of the uterus, in patients with pelvic organ prolapse on short and long term outcome. We report on (anatomical) status of the prolaps and the associated health related quality of life of women treated with RALS before and five years after surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective cohort study in a teaching hospital in The Netherlands was performed. Quality of life was assessed pre-operative, post-operative and five years after RALS using the UDI/IIQ validated self-questionnaire designed for Dutch-speaking patients. Clinical and operative data were prospectively collected up to five years. Statistical analysis of categorical data was performed with the paired T-test. Descriptive statistics were computed with the use of standard methods for means, median and proportions.

RESULTS

Hundred women with utero vaginal prolapse were treated with RALS with preservation of the uterus. The overall success rate of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) was 89.2%. After surgery the quality of life improved (P<0.05) Overall health status, based on a 0-100% visual analogue scale (VAS), improved from 72.6% pre-operative to 82.2% six weeks postoperative (P<0.05). Postoperative patients experienced less feelings of nervousness (P=0.01), shame (P<0.05) and frustration (P<0.05). The positive effects on these feelings remained present after five years. The learning curve shows a decrease in operating time with gained experience.

CONCLUSION

RALS has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for uterine preserving surgery in cases of pelvic organ prolapse. The long term anatomical outcomes and quality of life after RALS compare favorably with laparoscopic and open hysteropexy.