Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VALS) is a combined vaginal and laparoscopic surgical approach that has been described for the treatment of women with a uterus who suffer from severe multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term anatomical and functional outcomes and report the long-term mesh-related complications.
Methods
This was a single-center prospective study of women with advanced POP who underwent VALS with at least 3 years of follow-up. The primary outcome was “composite surgical success” defined as: (1) no descent of the vaginal apex (point C) more than one-third into the vaginal canal and no anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen (Ba and Bp < 0) (anatomical success), (2) no vaginal bulge symptoms and (3) no re-treatment for prolapse recurrence.
Results
The median follow-up was 7 years (range 3–10 years) with a composite surgical success rate of 95.7% (90/94). Failures (4.3%) included one (1.1%) case of anatomical recurrence (Bp: +1), one woman (1.1%) reporting vaginal bulge symptoms and two women (2.1%) who underwent a posterior colporrhaphy 6 and 12 months after primary surgery (reoperation rate: 2.1%). Two of 94 patients (2.1%) had been treated for mesh extrusion of the vaginal cuff prior to the follow-up visit.
Conclusions
The combined VALS technique can be considered a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of severe POP allowing a long-term anatomical restoration of all compartments with excellent functional outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- POP:
-
Pelvic organ prolapse
- SCP:
-
Sacrocolpopexy
- VALS:
-
Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy
- POP-Q:
-
Pelvic Organ Prolapse quantification system
- ICS:
-
International Continence Society
- UDS:
-
Multichannel urodynamics
- PFDI-20:
-
Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory
- PFIQ-7:
-
Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire
- ICIQ-FLUTS:
-
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Evaluating Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
- PGI-I:
-
Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire
- MUS:
-
Midurethral sling
- UIQ-7:
-
Urinary Impact Questionnaire-7
- POPIQ-7:
-
Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire-7
- CRAIQ-7:
-
Colorectal-Anal Impact Questionnaire-7
- SUI:
-
Stress urinary incontinence
- UUI:
-
Urge urinary incontinence
References
Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:1559–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2695-.
Aslam MF, Osmundsen B, Edwards SR, Matthews C, Gregory WT. Preoperative prolapse stage as predictor of failure of Sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:156–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000233.
Delancey JO, Kane Low L, Miller JM, Patel DA, Tumbarello JA. Graphic integration of causal factors of pelvic floor disorders: an integrated life span model. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:610 e611–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.001.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;30(4):CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.
Wong V, Guzman Rojas R, Shek KL, Chou D, Moore KH, Dietz HP. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: how low does the mesh go? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:404–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15882.
Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309:2016–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.4919.
Grigoriadis T, Protopapas A, Chatzipapas I, Athanasiou S. Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of complete uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:449–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2541-4.
Athanasiou S, Grigoriadis T, Chatzipapas I, Protopapas A, Antsaklis A. The vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a pilot study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:839–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1947-0.
Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, et al. An international Urogynecological association (IUGA)/international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:5–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9.
Weber AM, Abrams P, Brubaker L, Cundiff G, Davis G, et al. The standardization of terminology for researchers in female pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12:178–86.
Grigoriadis T, Athanasiou S, Giannoulis G, Mylona SC, Lourantou D, Antsaklis A. Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Greek short forms of two condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders: PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:2131–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2144-5.
Brookes ST, Donovan JL, Wright M, Jackson S, Abrams P. A scored form of the Bristol female lower urinary tract symptoms questionnaire: data from a randomized controlled trial of surgery for women with stress incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:73–82.
Athanasiou S, Grigoriadis T, Kyriakidou N, Giannoulis G, Antsaklis A. The validation of international consultation on incontinence questionnaires in the Greek language. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31:1141–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22197.
Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:523–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5.
Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:600–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae.
Sarlos D, Brandner S, Kots L, Gygax N, Schaer G. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for uterine and post-hysterectomy prolapse: anatomical results, quality of life and perioperative outcome-a prospective study with 101 cases. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunc. 2008;19:1415–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0657-0.
Liang S, Zhu L, Song X, Xu T, Sun Z, Lang J. Long-term outcomes of modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: a 3-year prospective study. Menopause. 2016;23:765–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/GME.0000000000000628.
Higgs PJ, Chua HL, Smith AR. Long term review of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. BJOG. 2005;112:1134–8.
Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191:1533–8.
Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A. Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery: a review at 5 years after surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:1317–24.
Weidner AC, Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Addison WA. Sacral osteomyelitis: an unusual complication of abdominal sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:689–91.
Visco AG, Weidner AC, Barber MD, Myers ER, Cundiff GW, et al. Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:297–302.
Zacharakis D, Grigoriadis T, Bourgioti C, Pitsouni E, Protopapas A, et al. Pre- and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings in patients treated with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Is it a safe procedure for all patients? Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:316–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23294.
Nosti PA, Carter CM, Sokol AI, Tefera E, Iglesia CB, et al. Transvaginal versus transabdominal placement of synthetic mesh at time of sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:151–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000222.
von Pechmann WS, Aungst MJ, Gruber DD, Ghodsi PM, Cruess DF, Griffis KR. A pilot study on vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for patients with uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:115–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e318216379d.
Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:527–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1726-y.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Athanasiou, S., Zacharakis, D., Protopapas, A. et al. Severe pelvic organ prolapse. Is there a long-term cure?. Int Urogynecol J 30, 1697–1703 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3775-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3775-3