Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic pectopexy: a randomised comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpo-cervicopexy to the new laparoscopic pectopexy. Short-term postoperative results

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Sacral colpopexy is a well established method of vaginal prolapse correction. Although it is capable of restoring the physiologic axis of the vagina, this method also bears some serious operative risks [1]. The aim of the study was to compare the laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with a laparoscopic bilateral fixation of the vagina/cervix to the iliopectineal ligaments via a PVDF-mesh (pectopexy).

Methods

This part of a single-center randomized prospective clinical trial (Canadian Task Force Classification) compared the short-term operative outcome of laparoscopic sacropexy and pectopexy. We evaluated the operating time, blood loss, hospital stay duration, occurrence of major complications, episodes of constipation, urinary retention, de novo urinary incontinence, urinary tract infections, body mass index and postoperative Creactive protein values. The 1-year follow up examination will be carried out to evaluate the occurrence of relapse as well as late complications. Local symptoms and sexual activity will be evaluated using a German version of the ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire.

Results

We carried out 43 pectopexies and 40 sacropexies in conjunction with other laparoscopic and/or vaginal procedures, as indicated. No major complications occurred in both groups during the hospital stay. There were no significant differences in the body mass index, average age, hospital stay duration and occurrence of constipation. The average operating time (43.1 vs. 52.1 min) and blood loss (4.6 vs. 15.3 ml) were significantly lower in the pectopexy group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Although laparoscopic pectopexy cannot yet be generally recommended as an alternative to sacropexy until the follow-up data is obtained, the new method can be considered in patients where the presacral preparation bears a higher risk of injury.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nygaard IE, Mc Creery R, Brubaker L et al (2009) Abdominal colpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104:805–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. David-Montefiore E, Barranger E, Dubernard G et al (2007) Functional results and quality of life after bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation for genital prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 132:209–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K et al (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 4:CD004014

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beer M, Kuhn A (2005) Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Europ J Obst Gynecol 119:144–155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rivoire C, Botchorishvili R, Canis M et al (2007) Complete laparoscopic treatment of genital prolapse with meshes including vaginal promontofixation and anterior repair: a series of 138 patients. J Min Invas Gynecol 14:712–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ross JW, Preston M (2005) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for severe vaginal vault prolapse: five-year outcome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 12(3):221–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Banerjee C, Leufgen H, Hatzmann W, Noé KG (2010) Complications, re-prolapse rates and functional results after laparoscopic sacropexy: a cohort study. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 70(5):379–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Reisenauer C, Huebner M, Wallwiener D (2011) Autonomous nerve-preserving sacropexy by laparoscopical approach. ICS. 2011:856

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wieslander CK, Rahn DD, McIntire DD et al (2006) Vascular anatomy of the presacral space in unembalmed female cadavers. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195(6):1736–1741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Banerjee C, Noé KG (2011) Laparoscopic pectopexy: a new technique of prolapse surgery for obese patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284(3):631–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cosson M, Boukerrou M, Lacaze S et al (2003) A study of pelvic ligament strength. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 109(1):80–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Ann Int Med 52(11):726–732

    Google Scholar 

  13. Banerjee C, Banerjee M, Hatzmann W et al (2010) The German version of the ‘ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire’ (German ICIQ-VS): an instrument validation study. Urol Int 85(1):70–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Klink CD, Junge K, Binnebösel M et al (2011) Comparison of long-term biocompatibility of PVDF and PP meshes. J Invest Surg 24(6):292–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Burch JC (1961) Urethrovaginal fixation of Cooper‘s ligament for correction of stress incontinence, cystocele and prolaps. Am J Obstet Gynecol 81:281–285

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Williams G, Richardson A (1952) Transplantation of external oblique aponeurosis: an operation for prolapse of the vagina following hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 64(3):552–558

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Neumaier M, Metak G, Scherer MA (2006) C-reactive protein as a parameter of surgical trauma: CRP response after different types of surgery in 349 hip fractures. Acta Orthop 77(5):788–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospital Dormagen, Teaching Hospital of the University of Cologne, Dr. Geldmacherstr. 20, 41539, Dormagen, Germany

    K. G. Noé, C. Spüntrup & M. Anapolski

Authors
  1. K. G. Noé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Spüntrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Anapolski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. G. Noé.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Noé, K.G., Spüntrup, C. & Anapolski, M. Laparoscopic pectopexy: a randomised comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpo-cervicopexy to the new laparoscopic pectopexy. Short-term postoperative results. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287, 275–280 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2536-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2536-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation