International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 763–767 | Cite as

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed transvaginal polypropylene mesh surgery

  • Corina Schmid
  • Peter O’Rourke
  • Christopher Maher
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

A prospective case series to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the surgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) after transvaginal polypropylene mesh prolapse surgery.


Between January and December 2010, women with post-hysterectomy recurrent prolapse (≥ stage 2 POP-Q) after transvaginal polypropylene mesh prolapse surgery were included. Perioperative morbidity and short-term complications were recorded and evaluated. Surgical outcomes were objectively assessed utilising the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the validated, condition-specific Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) at 12 months.


All 16 women in this study had undergone surgery with trocar-guided transvaginal polypropylene mesh kits. In 75% the recurrent prolapse affected the compartment of prior mesh surgery with the anterior (81%) and apical (75%) compartment prolapse predominating. At a mean follow-up of 12 months, all women had resolution of awareness of prolapse, had < stage 2 POP-Q on examination and high levels of satisfaction on PGI-I post surgery. There were no serious peri- or postoperative complications.


This preliminary study suggests that laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent prolapse after failed transvaginal mesh surgery is feasible and safe. Further widespread evaluation is required.


Recurrent prolapse Failed transvaginal polypropylene mesh prolapse surgery Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy 


Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Olsen AL et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89(4):501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Denman MA et al (2008) Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(5):555.e1–555.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu JM et al (2009) Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol 114(6):1278–1283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Abdel-Fattah M, Ramsay I (2008) Retrospective multicentre study of the new minimally invasive mesh repair devices for pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 115(1):22–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fatton B et al (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(7):743–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gauruder-Burmester A et al (2007) Follow-up after polypropylene mesh repair of anterior and posterior compartments in patients with recurrent prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(9):1059–1064PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baessler K et al (2005) Severe mesh complications following intravaginal slingplasty. Obstet Gynecol 106(4):713–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tijdink MM et al (2011) Surgical management of mesh-related complications after prior pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with mesh. Int Urogynecol J 22(11):1395–1404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ridgeway B et al (2008) Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199(6):703.e1–703.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bump RC et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baessler K et al (2010) A validated self-administered female pelvic floor questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(2):163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2010) Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(5):523–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maher CF et al (2011) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(4):360.e1–360.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):891–898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nieminen K et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(3):235.e1–235.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Withagen MI et al (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117(2 Pt 1):242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takahi Y et al (2011) Tension-free vaginal mesh repair for recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal mesh procedures: a case report. Hinyokika Kiyo 57(2):95–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nygaard IE et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):805–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feiner B, Maher C (2010) Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol 115(2 Pt 1):325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corina Schmid
    • 1
  • Peter O’Rourke
    • 2
  • Christopher Maher
    • 1
  1. 1.UrogynaecologyRoyal Brisbane & Women’s HospitalHerston, BrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Queensland Institute of Medical ResearchBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations