Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Variation in the practice of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Dutch survey

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Laparoscopic techniques for pelvic organ prolapse surgery using mesh are gaining interest. A standard approach or published guideline for the laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is lacking. The purpose of this study is to assess the variation between Dutch gynecologists in executing LSH and LSC.

Methods

A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the technique of LSH and LSC. All members of the Dutch Society for Gynecological Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery and the Dutch Society for Urogynecology were invited by email to participate in a web-based survey.

Results

With 357 respondents, the response rate was 71 %. Of the respondents, a total of 49 gynecologists (13.7 %) perform LSH and/or LSC. Gynecologists who perform both procedures use the same surgical technique for LSH and LSC. There are variations among gynecologists on several key points such as the level of dissection along the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina, the type of mesh used, the type of sutures used, the tension of the implanted mesh and reperitonealization of the mesh.

Conclusions

There is a high practice variation in LSH and LSC performed by a selected group of Dutch gynecologists. Different methods have been described in the literature and there is no consensus on how to perform these procedures. A well-designed prospective study or randomized controlled trial with regard to the specific parts of these procedures is needed to provide evidence for the best surgical technique. The outcomes of these studies will help to establish evidence-based guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N (2010) Life time risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 116(5):1096–1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rogo-Gupta L, Rodriguez LV, Litwin MS, Herzog TJ, Neugut AI, Lu YS, Raz S, Hershman DL, Wright JD (2012) Trends in surgical mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse from 2000 to 2010. Obstet Gynecol 120(5):1105–1115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA Safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Accessed 13 July 2011

  4. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5

    Google Scholar 

  5. Leron E, Stanton SL (2001) Sacrohysteropexy with synthetic mesh for the management of uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG 108(6):629–633

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, Zyczynski H (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):805–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenblatt PL, Chelmow D, Ferzandi TR (2008) Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse: a retrospective case series report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(3):268–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C (1994) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 84(5):885–888

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, Slack M, Scott P, Waterfield M (2013) A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J 24(3):377–384

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Coolen AL, van Oudheusden AM, van Eijndhoven HW, van der Heijden TP, Stokmans RA, Mol BW, Bongers MY (2013) A comparison of complications between open abdominal sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int 2013:528636 doi:10.1155/2013/528636

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pollard ME, Eilber KS, Anger JT (2013) Abdominal approaches to pelvic prolapse repairs. Curr Opin Urol 23:306–311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sarlos D, Kots L, Rye G, Schaer G (2014) Longterm follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 25(9):1207–1212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson S (2014) Laparoscopic hysteropexy: a novel technique for uterine preservation. Int Urogynecol J 25(1):139–140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Won H, Maley P, Salim S, Rao A, Campbell NT, Abbott JA (2013) Surgical and patient outcomes using mechanical bowel preparation before laparoscopic gynecological surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 121(3):538–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Siedhoff MT, Clark LH, Hobbs KA, Findley AD, Moulder JK, Garrett JM (2014) Mechanical bowel preparation before laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 123:562–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramanah R, Ballester M, Chereau E, Bui C, Rouzier R, Daraï E (2012) Anorectal symptoms before and after laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(6):779–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. De Tayrac R, Sentilhes L (2013) Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1859–1872

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Antiphon P, Elard S, Benyoussef A, Fofana M, Yiou R, Gettman M, Hoznek A, Vordos D, Chopin DK, Abbou CC. Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: is the posterior, recto-vaginal mesh mandatory? Eur Urol 45(5):655–661

  19. Boukerrou M, Orazi G, Nayama M, Boodhun R, Crépin G, Cosson M (2003) Promontofixation procedure: use of non-absorbable sutures or tackers. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 32(6):524–528

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Parkes IL, Shveiky D (2014) Sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal apical prolapse: evidence based surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(4):546–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Elneil S, Cutner AS, Remy M, Leather AT, Toozs-Hobson P, Wise B (2005) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse without burial of mesh: a case series. BJOG 112(4):486–489

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Frenkl TL, Rackley RR, Vasavada SP, Goldman HB (2008) Management of iatrogenic foreign bodies of the bladder and urethra following pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn 27(6):491–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Maher C, Feiner B (2011) Laparoscopic removal of intravesical mesh following pelvic organ prolapse mesh surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22(12):1593–1595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Manchouri E, Cohen SL, Sandberg EM, Kibel AS, Einarsson J (2012) Ureteral injury in laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol 5(2):106–111

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sandberg EM, Cohen SL, Hurwitz S, Einarsson JI (2012) Utility of cystoscopy during hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 120(6):1363–1370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dimitri S, Thomas A, Gabriel S (2014) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with deep attachment of anterior and posterior mesh. Int Urogynecol J 25(11):1591–1592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shippey SH, Quiroz LH, Sanses TV, Knoepp LR, Cundiff GW, Handa VL (2010) Anatomic outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy with or without paravaginal repair. Int Urogynecol J 21(3):279–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Guiahi M, Kenton K, Brubaker L (2008) Sacrocolpopexy without concomitant posterior repair improves posterior compartment defects. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19(9):1267–1270

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Crane AK, Geller EJ, Matthews CA (2013) Outlet constipation 1 year after robotic sacrocolpopexy with and without concomitant posterior repair. South Med J 106(7):409–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lensen EJM, Stoutjesdijk JA, Withagen MIJ, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME (2011) Technique of anterior colporrhaphy: a Dutch evaluation. Int Urogynecol J 22:557–561

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Ethical/institutional review board approval

Not applicable, since this study does not involve patients (not obligatory according to the Dutch law [WMO]).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Isala, PO Box 10500, 8000 GK, Zwolle, The Netherlands

    Mèlanie N. van IJsselmuiden, Manon H. Kerkhof & Hugo W. F. van Eijndhoven

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kennemer Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands

    René P. Schellart

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima Medisch Centrum, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

    Marlies Y. Bongers

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jeroen Bosch Ziekenhuis, Den Bosch, The Netherlands

    Wilbert A. Spaans

Authors
  1. Mèlanie N. van IJsselmuiden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manon H. Kerkhof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. René P. Schellart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marlies Y. Bongers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wilbert A. Spaans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hugo W. F. van Eijndhoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mèlanie N. van IJsselmuiden.

Additional information

Wilbert A. Spaans and Hugo W. F. van Eijndhoven contributed equally to the manuscript

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van IJsselmuiden, M.N., Kerkhof, M.H., Schellart, R.P. et al. Variation in the practice of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Dutch survey. Int Urogynecol J 26, 757–764 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2591-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2591-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation