Glue mesh fixation: Feasibility, tolerance and complication assessment. Results 24 months after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

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.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive literature review on current practice

Sacrocolpopexy is considered the preferred treatment for vaginal vault. However, numerous technical variants are being practiced. We aimed to summarize the recent literature in relation to technical aspects of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). We focused on surgical technique, mesh type, concomitant surgeries, and training aspects. We performed 2 independent literature searches in Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Embase electronic databases including the keywords: 'sacrocolpopexy', 'sacral colpopexy' and 'promontofixation'. Full text English-language studies of human patients, who underwent LSC, published from January 1, 2008 to February 26, 2019, were included. Levels of evidence using the modified Oxford grading system were assessed in order to establish a report of the available literature of highest level of evidence. Initially, 953 articles were identified. After excluding duplicates and abstracts screening, 35 articles were included. Vaginal fixation of the mesh can be performed with barbed or non-barbed (level 1), absorbable or non-absorbable sutures (level 2). Fixation of the mesh to the promontory can be performed with non-absorbable sutures or non-absorbable tackers (level 2). The current literature supports using type 1 mesh (level 2). Ventral mesh rectopexy can safely be performed with LSC while concurrent posterior repair has no additional benefit (level 2). There is no consensus regarding the preferred type of hysterectomy or the benefit of an additional anti urinary incontinence procedure. A structured learning program, as well as the number of procedures needed in order to be qualified for performing LSC is yet to be established. There are numerous variants for performing LSC. For many of its technical aspects there is little consensus.

Short-term Outcomes of Non-robotic Single-incision Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Surgical Technique

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Our main purpose was to describe the surgical technique and short-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (S-LSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DESIGN

This study consisted of a retrospective analysis of 49 consecutive cases.

SETTING

This study was set at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from October 2016 to November 2017.

PATIENTS

The population for this study consisted of women with stage II to IV POP who met eligibility criteria for laparoscopic surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

S-LSC included the use of V-loc barbed suture and retroperitoneal tunneling, in addition to standard single-incision laparoscopic surgery techniques. All 49 cases were successfully completed. All cases included concomitant procedures; 42 (85.7%) had removal of the uterus and adnexa. The main measured outcomes include patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and change in pelvic floor support (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System), and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

All patients were parous, and 42.9% had a history of previous abdominal surgery. The mean operative duration from skin to skin was 201.20 ± 46.53 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was 27.0 ± 16.6 mL. The mean pre- and post-operative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System scores were 2.2 ± 1.1 cm versus -2.6 ± 0.5 cm for the Aa point and 3.2 ± 2.8 cm versus -4.6 ± 0.8 cm for the C point (p <.05 for both). The mean pre- and post-operative Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores were 106.4 ± 18.9 versus 8.9 ± 4.26 (p <.05), suggesting that S-LSC significantly improved physical prolapse and quality of life. Four patients suffered from postoperative complications (3 mesh exposure and 1 lumbosacral pain). Six patients complained of new onset of stress urinary incontinence.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a feasible method to manage POP. However, the long-term effects and complications need to be further investigated.

Comparative mid-term anatomical and functional outcomes following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women under and over 65: results from a prospective study

PURPOSE

To compare mid-term anatomical and functional outcomes following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) between women under and over 65.

METHODS

Prospective and observational study involving patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) undergoing LS. Study population was stratified according to patients' age at the time of surgery. POP symptoms and impact on quality of life were assessed by PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 questionnaires at baseline and during follow-up.

RESULTS

Among our study population (n = 72), 26 women were over 65 and 46 under 65. Mean follow-up duration was 17.6 months, and complete follow-up was available in 90% of patients. No differences between study groups were observed regarding surgery duration, length of stay, and peri-operative complications. Recurrence rate was 1.4% at 18 months of follow-up. Questionnaires analysis revealed a significant improvement in PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 scores. We found no differences in post-operative scores between control and elderly groups. Sixteen patients experienced de novo stress urinary incontinence (22.2%), with no difference between groups (p = 0.7). Among them, seven required surgical management.

CONCLUSIONS

LS was associated with high anatomical success rate and good functional outcomes, regardless of age at the time of surgery. LS should thus be considered in women over 65. Beyond age, the route of surgery should be driven by patient's choice and medical condition.