The anatomy of the sacral promontory: How to avoid complications of the sacrocolpopexy procedure

The standardized procedure, technical key points and latest progress of laparoscopic lateral suspension surgery

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition that can affect up to 30% of women over the age of 50. For a long time, open abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) have been considered the gold standard in the treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Promontory dissection may expose patients to potential life-threatening intraoperative vascular injuries, as well as damage to sacral roots or the hypogastric nerve. Laparoscopic lateral suspension could be considered as an alternative to LSCP in the treatment of POP due to its favorable objective and subjective outcomes. The aim of this article is to demonstrate a step-by-step approach to laparoscopic lateral suspension for POP with the goal of standardizing this procedure. Technical key points and the latest progress are summarized to provide a reference for subsequent gynecological and urological surgeons.

METHOD

According to our surgical experience of our hospital, demonstrate a step-by-step approach and highlight technical key points for laparoscopic lateral suspension for POP with the aim of standardizing this procedure.

CONCLUSION

LLS with mesh is a safe alternative to laparoscopic sacropexy and is very well suited for uterine-preserving POP surgery. Nevertheless, this novel procedure lacks standardization. Standardization of procedures is necessary to reduce failure rates, generate impactful research data, and enhance patient safety. This article contributes to the standardization of this procedure, and we believe our article will be useful in assisting future gynecological and urological surgeons in performing this procedure.

Intraoperative Fluorescent Navigation of the Ureters, Vessels, and Nerves during Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy

In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of navigating the ureters, middle sacral artery (MSA), and superior hypogastric nerve (SHN) using indocyanine green (ICG) and near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging during robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSCP). Overall, 15 patients who underwent RSCP for apical vaginal prolapse were retrospectively enrolled. All patients underwent cystoscopic intraureteric instillation of 5 cc ICG (2.5 mg/mL) before RSCP and intravenous injection of 3 cc ICG during presacral dissection and mesh fixation. In all patients, the fluorescent right ureter was clearly identified in real time. The MSA was visualized on ICG-NIRF images in 80% (13/15) of patients. The mean time from ICG injection to MSA visualization was 43.7 s; the mean duration of the arterial phase was 104.3 s. Fluorescent SHN was detected in 73.3% (11/15) of patients. The time from ICG injection to SHN fluorescence was 48.4 s; the duration of fluorescence was 177.2 s. There was no transfusion, iatrogenic ureteral injury, or bowel or urinary dysfunction. Our results indicated that intraoperative ureter, MSA, and SHN mapping using ICG-NIRF images during RSCP is a valuable and safe technique to avoid iatrogenic ureteral, vascular, and neural injuries and to simplify surgical procedures. Nonetheless, further studies are required.

Abdominal Sacrohysteropexy using Proline mesh versus Mersilene tape in apical prolapse: A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

uterine preservation is increasingly a common demand in surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Using Proline mesh in surgical repair of prolapse may have negative drawbacks.

OBJECTIVE

compare between using Polyproline mesh and Mersilene tape in abdominal Sacrohysteropexy repairing apical prolapse stage ӀӀ or more.

STUDY DESIGN

This RCT study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Menoufia and Ain Shams university hospitals, Egypt). Eligible population included women planned Sacrohysteropexy for uterine prolapse ≥ stage 2 assigned to two groups: Mesh group (n = 38), underwent Sacrohysteropexy with polyproline mesh, and Tape group (n = 38), underwent Sacrohysteropexy using Mersilene tape.

RESULTS

High statistically significant difference between TAPE group and MESH group concerning hysteropexy time was 50.4 min in TAPE group vs 90.6 min in MESH group (p < 0.001), need for post operative analgesia was14 in TAPE group vs 27 in MESH group (p < 0.005). The mean hospital stay was 2.8 days in TAPE group vs 5.2days in MESH group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Using Mersilene tape in Sacrohysteropexy is a safe alternative to Polyproline Mesh with comparable efficacy with less complications. Tape is easier as it needs less dissection area for sacral fixation so less injury incidence.

Complications of Mesh Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy: Imaging Review

Sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy are commonly used surgical options for treatment of patients with pelvic organ and rectal prolapse, respectively. These procedures involve surgical fixation of the vaginal vault or the rectum to the sacral promontory with mesh material and can be performed independently of each other or in a combined fashion and by using an open abdominal approach or laparoscopy with or without robotic assistance. Radiologists can be particularly helpful in cases where patients' surgical histories are unclear by identifying normal sacrocolpopexy or rectopexy mesh material and any associated complications. Acute complications such as bleeding or urinary tract injury or stricture are generally evaluated with CT. More chronic complications such as mesh extrusion or exposure with or without fistulization to surrounding structures are generally evaluated with MRI. Other complications can have a variable time of onset after surgery. Patients with suspected bowel obstruction are generally evaluated with CT. Those with suspected infection, abscess formation, and discitis or osteomyelitis may be evaluated with MRI, although CT evaluation may be appropriate in certain scenarios. The authors review the sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy surgical techniques, discuss appropriate imaging protocols for evaluation of patients with suspected complications, and illustrate the normal appearance and common complications of these procedures. ^© RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Pelvic anatomy in laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: dissect your success

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse is a complex procedure, requiring high technical skills and great knowledge of the anatomy to perform a safe dissection and achieve the best clinical and surgical outcomes.

Objectives

To highlight the anatomical landmarks during dissection in this procedure and give tips for a safer and more effective performance.

Materials and Methods

Surgical videos of the dissection involved in laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in a stepwise approach.

Main outcome measures

Identification of the most important anatomical landmarks involved in the dissection of the promontory, the para-rectal space, the recto-vaginal space, and the vesico-vaginal space. Advice for acquiring better exposure and the right cleavage planes. Presentation of some difficult cases during dissection.

Results

Step-by-step overview of the different steps of dissection involved in laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse, specifying the most important anatomical landmarks for reference and at risk of damage and presenting tips to correctly perform the dissection.

Conclusion

Besides the great surgical technical skills required, deep knowledge of pelvic anatomy is key for performing laparoscopic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse safely, minimising complications and recurrence and improving quality of life and the overall success of surgery.

Mesh Exposure and Prolapse Recurrence Following Transvaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery for Sacrocolpopexy: Over 24 Months of Follow-up Data

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe the results of mesh exposure and prolapse recurrence of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) for sacrocolpopexy after more than 24 months of postoperative follow-up.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A university hospital.

PATIENTS

Women with uterine prolapse who underwent vNOTES sacrocolpopexy with an ultralightweight polypropylene mesh between May 2018 and March 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

vNOTES sacrocolpopexy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 57 women, 55 women (96.5%) were included in the final analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 35.5 ± 7.6 (24-46) months. The total incidence of mesh exposure was 3 of 55 (5.5%). The total incidence of prolapse recurrence was 3 of 55 (5.5%). The changes in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System scores, including Aa, Ba, C, Ap, Bp, and total vaginal length values, showed significant improvement after surgery (p <.05 for all).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that vNOTES sacrocolpopexy appears to be an effective option with low risks of mesh exposure and prolapse recurrence. Studies including more patients and longer follow-up periods should be performed before a clear conclusion can be reached.

Single feature constrained manual registration method for Augmented Reality applications in gynecological laparoscopic interventions

Augmented Reality (AR) can avoid some of the drawbacks of Minimally Invasive Surgery and may provide opportunities for developing innovative tools to assist surgeons. In laparoscopic surgery, the achievement of easy and sufficiently accurate registration is an open challenge. This is particularly true in procedures, such as laparoscopic abdominal Sacro-Colpopexy, where there is a lack of a sufficient number of visible anatomical landmarks to be used as a reference for registration. In an attempt to address the above limitations, we developed and preliminarily testes a constrained manual procedure based on the identification of a single anatomical landmark in the laparoscopic images, and the intraoperative measurement of the laparoscope orientation. Tests in a rigid in-vitro environment show good accuracy (median error 2.4 mm obtained in about 4 min) and good preliminary feedback from the technical staff who tested the system. Further experimentation in a more realistic environment is needed to validate these positive results. Clinical Relevance - This paper provides a new registration method for the development of AR educational videos and AR-based navigation systems for laparoscopic interventions.

Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension (LLS) for the Treatment of Apical Prolapse: A New Gold Standard?

Nowadays, the gold standard to treat apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP). However, LSCP is a difficult procedure associated with rare but potentially severe complications. Promontory dissection may expose to potential life-threatening intraoperative vascular injuries, and sacral roots or hypogastric nerve damage. There are also a few case reports of spondylodiscitis with consecutive lumbar vertebra bone erosion. Laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS) with mesh is an alternative technique for apical POP repair. It lowers perioperative risks by avoiding sacral promontory preparation. Recent studies show similar anatomical and functional outcomes to LSCP, with the advantage of better preserving the vaginal axis. Moreover, LLS is well suited for hysteropexy which is important as an increasing number of women prefer uterine preservation during POP surgery. In this article, we discuss both techniques, and we share our opinion on a novel perspective in the treatment of apical POP with uterine preservation.

Contemporary Use and Techniques of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy With or Without Robotic Assistance for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without robotic assistance is an effective approach for the treatment of any pelvic organ prolapse when apical involvement is present.

The past 4 years have been consequential in the world of surgery to correct pelvic organ prolapse. In 2018, results of a large, multicenter randomized trial demonstrated very disappointing cure rates of traditional native tissue repairs at 5 years or more. In 2019, a vaginal mesh hysteropexy kit was removed from the market by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only to subsequently demonstrate it provided better cure rates and similar risk profile to vaginal hysterectomy plus native tissue repair in its own 5-year study published in 2021. Meanwhile, the use and techniques of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without robotic assistance have evolved such that it is commonly adapted to treat all support defects for patients with uterovaginal or posthysterectomy prolapse. This article is intended to provide an overview of the contemporary use and techniques of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy based on the evidence and our clinical experience.

Robot-assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Insights for a Challenging Surgical Setting

BACKGROUND

No consensus exists regarding the management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this study was to evaluate robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP), and to investigate postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a single-centre retrospective study including 10 consecutive patients who underwent a robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for symptomatic POP recurrence from February 2017 to December 2019. Recurrence rates and patient satisfaction, measured by the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) were recorded.

RESULTS

Median age was 57 years (IQR: 54-67). No intraoperative complications were reported. The median hospital stay after surgery was 2 nights (IQR: 1-4). Two patients (20%) experienced early recurrence: at 1 month for one and at 4.5 months for the other. The median follow-up for the remaining eight patients was 18 months (IQR: 12-23). Among the recurrence-free patients, the median PFIQ-7 score was 11.4 at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy is feasible and safe for the management of POP recurrence, with a high patient satisfaction.

Standard practice of presacral exposure during transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for sacrocolpopexy

We describe the standard practice of presacral exposure during transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) for sacrocolpopexy in women with uterine prolapse. In this video, we demonstrate the key techniques: identifying the right hypogastric nerve (rHN) before opening the pelvic peritoneum; removing the fat and loose connective tissue along the rHN to expose the presacral fascia; incising the presacral fascia to reach the presacral space to expose the middle sacral vasculature and the anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) of the first sacral vertebra (S1) below the promontory; attaching the mesh to the ALL to avoid vessel injury; and completing the peritonealisation.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: Comparison of standard versus tacker combination method

OBJECTIVE

To compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse between a group in which only sutures were used (standard method), and a group in which a combination of tackers and sutures were used (tacker combination method).

METHODS

A total of 77 patients who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexys from June 2016 to October 2019 were divided into a suture group (36 patients) and a suture + tacker group (41 patients). We retrospectively compared operation time, amount of blood loss, postoperative length of hospital stay, incidence of perioperative complications and anatomical cure rate 1 year after surgery. Lower urinary tract symptoms were evaluated using symptom questionnaires and objective parameters.

RESULTS

Operation time in the suture + tacker group was shorter (104.9 ± 27.0 vs 147.5 ± 33.7 min; P < 0.0001). The incidence of perioperative complications in the suture group and the suture + tacker group was 2.8% and 2.4%, respectively (P = 0.9409). Anatomical cure rates at 1 year after surgery were 94.4% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.2153). Both groups showed significant improvement after 1 year for International Prostate Symptom Score total and quality of life score, Overactive Bladder Symptom Score total score, voided volume, maximum urinary flow rate and post-void residual. [Corrections added on 7 September 2021 after first online publication: the first two P-values have been updated.] CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of sutures and tackers in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy simplifies the procedure and translates into shorter operation time. Surgical outcomes at 1 year and improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms are similar regardless of the technique.

Laparoscopic pectopexy: the learning curve and comparison with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Introduction and hypothesis

In addition to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS), laparoscopic pectopexy (LP) is a novel surgical method for correcting apical prolapse. The descended cervix or vaginal vault is suspended with a synthetic mesh by fixing the bilateral mesh ends to the pectineal ligaments. This study was aimed at developing a learning curve for LP and to compare it with results with LS.

Methods

We started laparoscopic/robotic pectopexy in our department in August 2019. This retrospective study included the initial 18 consecutive women with apical prolapse receiving LP and another group undergoing LS (21 cases) performed by the same surgeon. The medical and video records were reviewed.

Results

The age was older in the LP group than in the LS group (65.2 vs 53.1 years). The operation time of LP group was significantly shorter than that of the LS group (182.9 ± 27.2 vs 256.2 ± 45.5 min, p < 0.001). The turning point of the LP learning curve was observed at the 12th case. No major complications such as bladder, ureteral, bowel injury or uncontrolled bleeding occurred in either group. Postoperative low back pain and defecation symptoms occurred exclusively in the LS group. During the follow-up period (mean 7.2 months in LP, 16.2 months in LS), none of the cases had recurrent apical prolapse.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic pectopexy is a feasible surgical method for apical prolapse, with a shorter operation time and less postoperative discomfort than LS. LP may overcome the steep learning curve of LS because the surgical field of LP is limited to the anterior pelvis and avoids encountering the critical organs.

Easy mesh fixation to the promontory during sacrocolpopexy procedure

We propose a simplified technique to approach the promontory and to fix the mesh on the anterior longitudinal ligament during the sacrocolpopexy procedure by using an instrument initially designed for the vaginal approach of the sacrospinous ligament. Using this easy technique in case of anatomic variations on the sacral promontory may avoid complications.

Comparison of laparoscopic techniques for apical organ prolapse repair - a systematic review of the literature

AIMS

Apical defect is a pelvic organ prolapse disorder, with 5%-15% prevalence. The aim of the study was to investigate methods of laparoscopic repair of apical defect and compare them with other techniques (open, vaginal, and robotic).

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases using the following key words: apical prolapse and treatment procedures. The search was limited by using the humans filters. Only articles published in English between 2010 and 2018 were considered. Two independent authors reviewed the publications for inclusion on the basis of the following criteria: (a) use of laparoscopic techniques, and (b) apical support loss as indication for surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 1002 papers were initially identified; 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four main laparoscopic procedures were found. The reported anatomical success rate (POP-Q < II stage) was 77%-100%, with patient satisfaction for pectopexy, laparoscopic sacropexy (LS), lateral ligament suspension and laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) of 96.4%-97.6%, 71.0%-100%, 66.7%-87.8%, and 95%-95.5%, respectively. Major complications included hemorrhage, bladder, ureter, and/or bowel injuries were rare. Prolapse recurrences after LUSLS and LS were reported in 13.2% and 10.4% of patients, respectively; with reoperation rate for LS 2.2%-12.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies reported anatomical and subjective outcomes, with follow-up ranging from 1 month to >7 years. Success rates for laparoscopic and abdominal corrections of apical defect were similar; laparoscopy was superior in terms of perioperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and recovery.

Laparoscopic surgical anatomy for pelvic floor surgery

Understanding anatomy is one of the pillars for performing a safe, effective, and efficient surgery, but recently, it is reported that there has been a decline in teaching anatomy during the preclinical years of medical school. There is also evidence that by the time a medical student becomes a clinician, a considerable proportion of the basic anatomy knowledge is lost. Hence, it is crucial for surgeons performing or assisting in pelvic floor surgery to revisit this integral clinical aspect of pelvic anatomy for performing a safe surgery. Pelvic organ prolapse repair, especially abdominal laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, which is the gold standard of pelvic organ prolapse repair, presents a significant challenge to surgeons because the technique requires thorough and meticulous negotiation through abdomino-pelvic vascular structures and nerves supplying the pelvis, rectum, and ureters. The abdominal laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy surgery requires surgeons to have a deep understanding of anatomy to prevent potential life-threatening complications, which is as critical as it is for a pilot to understand the navigation route for a safe landing. This review is an extensive look and a great reminder to laparoscopic surgeons working in the pelvic cavity, especially those performing a pelvic floor surgery, about the anatomical safe routes for performing laparoscopic pelvic floor repairs. For easy reading and clear understanding, we have described step by step the safe anatomical journey a surgeon needs to take during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. We divided the technique into five critical anatomic locations (landmarks), which serves as our "flight map" for performing safe and efficient laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.