International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 1751–1753 | Cite as

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pectouteropexy: an alternative uterus-sparing technique for pelvic organ prolapse surgery

  • Taner Usta
  • Tolga KaracanEmail author
  • Ahmet Kale
  • Sevgin Mutlu
  • Talha Tıryakı
IUJ Video


The aim of this video is to demonstrate the alternative technique of robot-assisted laparoscopic pectouteropexy for uterus preservation in obese patients with pelvic organ prolapse. We present the case report of a 44-year-old patient with apical pelvic organ prolapse. A pelvic examination was performed during a Valsalva maneuver in the dorsal lithotomy position and in the standing position, and the patient was diagnosed with stage III apical prolapse in accordance with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system of the International Continence Society (POP-Q: Аа −1, Ва 0, Вр 0, С +2). We performed the procedure, which was developed as an alternative to sacrocolpopexy or sacrouteropexy, as described by Banerjee and Noé (Arch Gynecol Obstet 284:24–28, 2011). Pectouteropexy is a new method for prolapse surgery that uses the lateral parts of the iliopectineal ligament for bilateral mesh fixation of the descended structures and provides strong apical support. We believe that robot-assisted laparoscopic pectouteropexy is a valuable alternative approach for uterus-preserving pelvic organ prolapse surgery owing to its better robot maneuverability, reduced operating time, and better visualization in obese patients.


Pectouteropexy Robotic surgery Minimally invasive surgery 



We thank D.F. Chapman, BSc, for editing the article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest


Supplementary material


(MP4 71,149 kb)


  1. 1.
    Banerjee C, Noé KG. Laparoscopic pectopexy: a new technique of prolapse surgery for obese patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;284:631–635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kale A, Terzi H, Usta T. Laparoscopic pectouteropexy: alternative technique for uterine preservation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:1028–1029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jaydeep HP. Robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery. J Minim Access Surg. 2009;5:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diwan A, Rardin CR, Kohli N. Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2004;15:286–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alas AN, Anger JT. Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16:33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    White AB, Carrick KS, Corton MM, McIntire DD, Word RA, Rahn DD, Wai CY. Optimal location and orientation of suture placement in abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1098–1103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shippey S, Sutter E, Belkoff SM, Gutman R, Chen CC. Sacral mesh pullout strength based on suture location for sacrocolpopexy. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;74:116–119.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noé KG, Schiermeier S, Alkatout I, Anapolski M. Laparoscopic pectopexy: a prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpocervicopexy with the new laparoscopic pectopexy – postoperative results and intermediate-term follow-up in a pilot study. J Endourol. 2015;29:210–215.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cosson M, Boukerrou M, Lacaze S, et al. A study of pelvic ligament strength. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;109:80–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taner Usta
    • 1
  • Tolga Karacan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ahmet Kale
    • 1
  • Sevgin Mutlu
    • 1
  • Talha Tıryakı
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bagcilar Research and Education HospitalUniversity of Health SciencesIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations