Laparoscopic approach to pelvic organ prolapse - the way to go or a blind alley?

Robotic versus Mini-Laparoscopic Colposacropexy to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study and a Medicolegal Perspective

Background: POP (pelvic organ prolapse) involves the descent of one or more pelvic organs downwards with or without protrusion from the vaginal opening, caused by the relaxation and weakening of ligaments, connective tissue, and pelvic muscles. Such an outcome negatively impacts the quality of life. The gold standard procedure for repairing apical compartment prolapse is colposacropexy (CS) to secure the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina to the anterior longitudinal sacral ligament, located anteriorly to the sacral promontory, using a mesh. Several surgical approaches are feasible. Laparotomic or minimally invasive methods, including laparoscopic or robotic ones, can restore the horizontal axis of the vagina and typically involve concomitant hysterectomy. Methods: This study is based on 80 patients who underwent CS at Palermo's Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello from 2019 to 2023. Women aged 35-85 at the time of surgery were divided into two groups: 40 patients underwent mini-laparoscopic surgery, and 40 patients underwent robotic surgery. The following parameters were accounted for: demographic data (initials of name and surname, age), preoperative clinical diagnosis, date of surgery, surgical procedure performed, estimated intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgical intervention, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain assessed at 24 h using the VAS scale, and any complications occurring in the postoperative period. Mini-laparoscopic CS (Minilap) and robotic CS (Rob) were then compared in terms of outcomes. Results: In the Minilap group, 11 patients out of 40 had a preoperative diagnosis of vaginal vault prolapse. The average age in this group was 61.6. Five of these patients had isolated cystocele, while the rest presented vaginal stump prolapse linked to cystocele, rectocele, or both. The remaining 29 patients in the Minilap group had a preoperative diagnosis of uterovaginal prolapse, also associated with cystocele, rectocele, or both, or isolated in nine cases. In the Rob group (average age: 60.1), 13 patients were diagnosed with vaginal prolapse (isolated or associated with cystocele), while the remaining 27 had a diagnosis of uterovaginal prolapse. In the Minilap group, the average procedure duration was 123.3 min, shorter than the Rob group (160.1 min). Conclusions: The data collected throughout this prospective study point to the mini-laparoscopic approach as being preferable over the robotic one in terms of surgical procedure length, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, and aesthetic outcome. Hospital stay duration and post operative complication rates were similar for both groups. The innovative and ever-progressing nature of such procedures calls for novel standards prioritizing patient care as well as medicolegal viability.

Transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh: experiences of 93 cases

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

To demonstrate the outcomes of pelvic reconstruction using Y-shaped mesh in patients with multiple-compartment pelvic organ prolapse via transvaginal single-port laparoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective case series study. Patients diagnosed with severe multiple-compartment prolapse were enrolled between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients underwent transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh. Baseline data and perioperative results were collected. Patients were followed up with the POP-Q score, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire short form (PISQ-12). T-test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Operations were successful in all 93 patients without conversion or serious complications. Mean operative time was 132.70 ± 28.02 min and estimated blood loss was 110.65 ± 56.31 ml. VAS pain score was 2.91 ± 1.16 and cosmetic score was 9.20 ± 0.60. During 1-33 months of follow-up, no recurrence or mesh exposure was observed. Five patients suffered from de novo SUI, six had constipation, two had dyspareunia, and one had persistent pelvic pain. The pre- and postoperative Aa point was +2.13 ± 1.23 vs. -2.91 ± 0.28 (P < 0.05), C point was 2.63 ± 2.41 vs. -6.86 ± 0.69 (P < 0.05), and Ap point was -0.26 ± 1.79 vs. -2.97 ± 0.16 (P < 0.05). The PFDI-20 score was 76.81 ± 32.06 vs. 18.18 ± 20.25 (P < 0.05), while the PISQ-12 score was 34.30 ± 4.17 vs. 37.20 ± 2.60 (P < 0.05), which suggested significant improvements in both physical prolapse and quality of life after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Transvaginal single-port laparoscopic pelvic reconstruction with Y-shaped mesh is a feasible, effective and safe treatment option for severe multiple-compartment prolapse. Patients may benefit from its mild pain level and good cosmetic effect as well as only minor mesh-related complications.