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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Vancaillie TG. Laparoscopic colposuspension and pelvic floor repair. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1997;9(4):244–6.
Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(5):885–8.
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.
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.
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.
Dubuisson J, Dubuisson JB. [How I do... laparoscopic sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2012;40(12):797–8.
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.
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.
Cundiff GW. The pathophysiology of stress urinary incontinence: a historical perspective. Rev Urol. 2004;6(Suppl 3):S10–8.
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.
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.
Dean N, Ellis G, Herbison GP, Wilson D, Mashayekhi A. Laparoscopic colposuspension for urinary incontinence in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;7:CD002239.
Ulmsten U, Johnson P, Petros P. Intravaginal slingplasty. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1994;116(7):398–404.
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.
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.
https://improvement.nhs.uk/news-alerts/provider-bulletin-11-july-2018/#vaginal-mesh-restriction. Accessed 1 Jun 2019.
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.
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.
Weston PV. A new clinch knot. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(1):144–7.
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.
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.
Carey MP, Goh JT, Rosamilia A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open Burch colposuspension: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113(9):999–1006.
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.
Deprest J, Krofta L, Van der Aa F, et al. The challenge of implementing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1153–60.
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.
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.
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.
Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196(1):159–65.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–103.
Vossaert K, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is as safe in septuagenarians older as in younger women. Gynecol Surg. 2018;15
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing. Accessed 21 July 2017.
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.
Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.
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.
Bates AT, Divino C. Laparoscopic surgery in the elderly: a review of the literature. Aging Dis. 2015;6(2):149–55.
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.
King SW, et al. Laparoscopic uterovaginal prolapse surgery in the elderly: feasibility and outcomes. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14(1):2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
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)