Abstract
Introduction
Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for vault prolapse. Current reported standards regarding surgical approach and technique vary. Our aim was to evaluate the surgical techniques used and identify any consistency.
Methods
Electronic surveys were sent to 148 candidates enrolled in a sacrocolpopexy workshop at the 2012 American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) annual meeting and as a link in the International Urogynecology Association (IUGA) e-magazine. The survey assessed demographics, specific surgical steps including dissection techniques, number and type of sutures, graft materials, and the approach to intraoperative complications.
Results
Within the AUGS group, 61 candidates responded (41 %). From the IUGA membership, 128 responded for a total of 189. Overall, 59 % identified their primary practice as urogynaecology, 43 % having completed a fellowship. Only 33 % reported performing sacrocolpopexy as the primary surgery for vault prolapse. Technical aspects: 99.4 % used polypropylene mesh, with 57 % attaching it to the vagina using non-absorbable monofilament sutures. An average of 3–4 sutures were used on the anterior and posterior walls respectively. Suture location: 22.5 % reported not placing apical sutures and 55.7 % place their anterior wall sutures midway down the vagina. Posteriorly, 47 (30 %) placed sutures through the uterosacral ligaments, 19 (12.4 %) through the levator ani and 15 % extend the mesh to the perineal body. The mesh was attached to the sacrum using permanent sutures by 75 %. Dissection of the sacrum was deemed the most technically difficult aspect.
Conclusion
Surgical technique varies widely despite the level of expertise and training. This study highlights the need for an evaluation of the effect of surgical technique on outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barber MD, Maher C (2013) Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1815–1833
Arthure HG, Savage D (1957) Uterine prolapse and prolapse of the vaginal vault treated by sacral hysteropexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 64(3):355–360
Lane FE (1962) Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 20:72–77
Birnbaum SJ (1973) Rational therapy for the prolapsed vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 115(3):411–419
Sutton GP, Addison WA, Livengood CH III, Hammond CB (1981) Life-threatening hemorrhage complicating sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 140(7):836–837
Snyder TE, Krantz KE (1991) Abdominal-retroperitoneal sacral colpopexy for the correction of vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 77(6):944–949
Addison WA, Timmons MC, Wall LL, Livengood CH III (1989) Failed abdominal sacral colpopexy: observations and recommendations. Obstet Gynecol 74(3 Pt 2):480–483
Addison WA, Cundiff GW, Bump RC, Harris RL (1996) Sacral colpopexy is the preferred treatment for vaginal vault prolapse. J Gynecol Technol 2:69–74
Deprest J, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Werbrouck E, Coremans G, Claerhout F (2009) Medium term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with xenografts compared to synthetic grafts. J Urol 182(5):2362–2368
Altman D, Anzen B, Brismar S, Lopez A, Zetterström J (2006) Long-term outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy using xenograft compared with synthetic mesh. Urology 67(4):719–724
Hendee AE, Berry CM (1981) Abdominal sacropexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 24(4):1217–1226
Lansman HH (1984) Posthysterectomy vault prolapse: sacral colpopexy with dura mater graft. Obstet Gynecol 63(4):577–582
Van IJsselmuiden MN (2015) Variation in the practice of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Dutch survey. Int Urogynecol J 26(5):757–764
Sullivan ES, Longaker CJ, Lee PY (2001) Total pelvic mesh repair: a ten-year experience. Dis Colon Rectum 44(6):857–863
Randall CL, Nichols DH (1971) Surgical treatment of vaginal inversion. Obstet Gynecol 38(3):327–32
Jacquetin B, Fatton B, Rosenthal C et al (2010) Total transvaginal mesh (TVM) technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a 3-year prospective follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J 21(12):1455–1462
Popovic I, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Boukerrou M (2007) Prosthetic reinforcements: how to manage bladder injuries? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(10):1215–1257
De Tayrac R, Sentilhes L (2013) Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1859–1872
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
O.E. O’Sullivan: no conflicts of interest to declare; C.A. Matthews: grant funding from AMS, Boston Scientific, and Pelvalon, consultant for Pelvalon; B.A. O’Reilly: has received financial support for educational programmes from Astellas and Pfizer.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 96 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Sullivan, O.E., Matthews, C.A. & O’Reilly, B.A. Sacrocolpopexy: is there a consistent surgical technique?. Int Urogynecol J 27, 747–750 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2880-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2880-9