Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic Pelvic Floor Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pelvic Floor Disorders

Abstract

Laparoscopy offers better exposure and surgical detail, avoids the need for excessive abdominal packing and bowel manipulation, next to reduced blood loss and lesser morbidity. It is therefore the ideal approach for pelvic floor procedures to treat urinary incontinence, pelvic organ, and rectal prolapse. The most commonly performed procedures are sacrocolpopexy, rectopexy, and colposuspension, which evolved from the stage of technical experimentation (1990s) and uncontrolled studies (early twenty-first century) to procedures for which today level I evidence is available that they provide equally good outcomes as their open counterparts. Offering a combination of incontinence, vaginal prolapse, and rectal surgery requires a multidisciplinary surgical team. The generic limitations of laparoscopy are its steep learning curve and long operation times, the limited number of degrees of freedom and its two-dimensional vision. Those limitations may in part or completely be overcome by a robotic approach, though there are no studies demonstrating a clinical benefit. Robotic surgery may shorten the learning curve for surgeons not familiar with “straight stick” laparoscopy, but remains expensive. This may change in the near future as more competitors will be on the market. Likewise, colposuspension may rekindle because of the negative advertisement for synthetic materials making patients ask for alternatives for mid-urethral slings.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Vancaillie TG. Laparoscopic colposuspension and pelvic floor repair. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9(4):244–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(5):885–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bedford ND, Seman EI, O’shea RT, Keirse MJ. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic repair of cystocoele. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(6):588–92.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dubuisson J, Veit-Rubin N, Bouquet de Jolinière J, Dubuisson JB. Laparoscopic lateral suspension: benefits of a cross-shaped mesh to treat difficult vaginal vault prolapse. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(5):672.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Panico G, Campagna G, Caramazza D, et al. Laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension: an alternative route for a traditional technique. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(8):1227–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dubuisson J, Dubuisson JB. [How I do... laparoscopic sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2012;40(12):797–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Greenwell T, Cutner A. The anatomy and an illustrated description of a technique for combined laparoscopic and vaginal total removal of an obturator mid urethral tape. Transl Androl Urol. 2018;7(6):978–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Callewaert G, Bosteels J, Housmans S, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:115–23.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cundiff GW. The pathophysiology of stress urinary incontinence: a historical perspective. Rev Urol. 2004;6(Suppl 3):S10–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167–78.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Burch JC. Cooper’s ligament urethrovesical suspension for stress incontinence. Nine years’ experience--results, complications, technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1968;100(6):764–74.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dean N, Ellis G, Herbison GP, Wilson D, Mashayekhi A. Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD002239.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ulmsten U, Johnson P, Petros P. Intravaginal slingplasty. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1994;116(7):398–404.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ford AA, Ogah JA. Retropubic or transobturator mid-urethral slings for intrinsic sphincter deficiency-related stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Van der Aa F, Deprest J, De Ridder D. Surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: do tapes stand the test of time? Eur Urol. 2017;72(4):592–3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. https://improvement.nhs.uk/news-alerts/provider-bulletin-11-july-2018/#vaginal-mesh-restriction. Accessed 1 Jun 2019.

  17. Fusco F, Abdel-Fattah M, Chapple CR, et al. Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative data on colposuspensions, pubovaginal slings, and midurethral tapes in the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2017;72(4):567–91.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wallwiener D, Grischke EM, Rimbach S, Maleika A, Bastert G. Endoscopic retropubic colposuspension: “Retziusscopy” versus laparoscopy--a reasonable enlargement of the operative spectrum in the management of recurrent stress incontinence? Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1995;3(2–3):115–8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Weston PV. A new clinch knot. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(1):144–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deprest J, Brollman H, De Ridder D, Vandromme J, Degueldre M. Cusumano laparoscopic colposuspension. In: Timmerman D, Deprest J, Bourne T, editors. Ultrasound and endoscopic surgery in obstetrics and gynaecology. A combined approach to diagnosis and management: a combined approach to diagnosis and treatment. New York: Springer; 2002. p. 122–31. ISBN: 3-5407-6212-4.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kitchener HC, Dunn G, Lawton V, et al. Laparoscopic versus open colposuspension--results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113(9):1007–13.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Carey MP, Goh JT, Rosamilia A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open Burch colposuspension: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113(9):999–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lucot JP, Cosson M, Bader G, et al. Safety of vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy for cystocele repair: results of the prosthetic pelvic floor repair randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):167–76.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Deprest J, Krofta L, Van der Aa F, et al. The challenge of implementing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1153–60.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):377–84.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Coolen AL, van Oudheusden AM, van Eijndhoven HW, et al. A comparison of complications between open abdominal sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:528636.

    Google Scholar 

  27. De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196(1):159–65.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Coolen AWM, van IJsselmuiden MN, van Oudheusden AMJ, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse, a randomized controlled trial: SALTO-2 trial, study protocol. BMC Womens Health. 2017;17(1):52.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Lippmann Q, Lukacz ES, Luber KM, Nager CW. A pilot study comparing anatomic failure after sacrocolpopexy with absorbable or permanent sutures for vaginal mesh attachment. Perm J. 2014;18(4):40–4.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):649–56.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Elneil S, Cutner AS, Remy M, Leather AT, Toozs-Hobson P, Wise B. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse without burial of mesh: a case series. BJOG. 2005;112(4):486–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Myers EM, Siff L, Osmundsen B, Geller E, Matthews CA. Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(4):585–9.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(2):205–12.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Van Beckevoort D, et al. Sacrocolpopexy using xenogenic acellular collagen in patients at increased risk for graft-related complications. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(4):563–7.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Deprest J, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Werbrouck E, Coremans G, Claerhout F. Medium term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with xenografts compared to synthetic grafts. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2362–8.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Culligan PJ, Salamon C, Priestley JL, Shariati A. Porcine dermis compared with polypropylene mesh for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(1):143–51.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Balsamo R, Illiano E, Zucchi A, et al. Sacrocolpopexy with polyvinylidene fluoride mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: mid term comparative outcomes with polypropylene mesh. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;220:74–8.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1185–91.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–103.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vossaert K, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is as safe in septuagenarians older as in younger women. Gynecol Surg. 2018;15

    Google Scholar 

  43. Vandendriessche D, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Behal H, Cosson M. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy learning curve on operative time, perioperative complications and short term results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;191:84–9.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vandendriessche D, Sussfeld J, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Behal H, Cosson M. Complications and reoperations after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a mean follow-up of 4 years. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):231–9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, et al. Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol. 2009;55(6):1459–67.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Blikkendaal MD, Twijnstra AR, Stiggelbout AM, Beerlage HP, Bemelman WA, Jansen FW. Achieving consensus on the definition of conversion to laparotomy: a Delphi study among general surgeons, gynecologists, and urologists. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(12):4631–9.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Twijnstra AR, Blikkendaal MD, van Zwet EW, Jansen FW. Clinical relevance of conversion rate and its evaluation in laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    Google Scholar 

  49. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing. Accessed 21 July 2017.

  50. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Richardson JD, Cocanour CS, Kern JA, et al. Perioperative risk assessment in elderly and high-risk patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199(1):133–46.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Bates AT, Divino C. Laparoscopic surgery in the elderly: a review of the literature. Aging Dis. 2015;6(2):149–55.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Turner LC, Kantartzis K, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP. The effect of age on complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1251–6.

    Google Scholar 

  55. King SW, et al. Laparoscopic uterovaginal prolapse surgery in the elderly: feasibility and outcomes. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14(1):2.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Boudy AS, Thubert T, Vinchant M, Hermieu JF, Villefranque V, Deffieux X. Outcomes of laparoscopic sacropexy in women over 70: a comparative study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207:178–83.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Claerhout F, Roovers JP, Lewi P, Verguts J, De Ridder D, Deprest J. Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy--a single centre’s experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(9):1119–25.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Gyhagen M, Akervall S, Milsom I. Clustering of pelvic floor disorders 20 years after one vaginal or one cesarean birth. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(8):1115–21.

    Google Scholar 

  59. van Gruting IMA, Stankiewicz A, Kluivers K, et al. Accuracy of four imaging techniques for diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):1017–24.

    Google Scholar 

  60. D’Hoore A, Penninckx F. Laparoscopic ventral recto(colpo)pexy for rectal prolapse: surgical technique and outcome for 109 patients. Surg Endosc. 2006;20(12):1919–23.

    Google Scholar 

  61. van Geluwe B, Wolthuis A, Penninckx F, D’Hoore A. Lessons learned after more than 400 laparoscopic ventral rectopexies. Acta Chir Belg. 2013;113(2):103–6.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Samaranayake CB, Luo C, Plank AW, Merrie AE, Plank LD, Bissett IP. Systematic review on ventral rectopexy for rectal prolapse and intussusception. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(6):504–12.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Balla A, Quaresima S, Smolarek S, Shalaby M, Missori G, Sileri P. Synthetic versus biological mesh-related erosion after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy: a systematic review. Ann Coloproctol. 2017;33(2):46–51.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Eisenberg VH, Callewaert G, Sindhwani N, et al. Ultrasound visualization of sacrocolpopexy polyvinylidene fluoride meshes containing paramagnetic Fe particles compared with polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;30(5):795–804.

    Google Scholar 

  65. van IJsselmuiden MN, Coolen AL, Detollenaere RJ, et al. Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (LAVA-trial, study protocol). BMC Womens Health, 2014. 14: 112.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pelvic Floor Unit, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Jan Deprest, Ann-Sophie Page, Albert Wolthuis & Susanne Housmans

Authors
  1. Jan Deprest
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann-Sophie Page
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Albert Wolthuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanne Housmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Deprest .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tertiary Referral Pelvic Floor and Incontinence Center, IV°Division of General Surgery, Regional Hospital, Treviso, University of Padua, Padua, Italy

    Giulio A. Santoro

  2. Department of Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Lublin, Children’s University Hospital, Lublin, Poland

    Andrzej P. Wieczorek

  3. Urogynaecology and Pelvic Floor, Reconstruction Unit, Croydon University Hospital, St George’s University of London, London, UK

    Abdul H. Sultan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Deprest, J., Page, AS., Wolthuis, A., Housmans, S. (2021). Laparoscopic Pelvic Floor Surgery. In: Santoro, G.A., Wieczorek, A.P., Sultan, A.H. (eds) Pelvic Floor Disorders. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40862-6_56

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40862-6_56

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40861-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40862-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation