International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 12, pp 1841–1842 | Cite as

Demonstration of a box-stitch technique for laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension

  • Allison M. WymanEmail author
  • Lindsey Hahn
  • Emad Mikhail
  • Stuart Hart
IUJ Video



We demonstrate a novel box stitch technique of laparoscopic post-hysterectomy uterosacral ligament suspension for apical prolapse in restorative pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Material and methods

We present a case of a 58yo female with symptomatic stage III pelvic organ prolapse with a history of a total abdominal hysterectomy 30 years prior. She strongly desired the usage of no synthetic or biologic mesh for her restorative surgical repair. This video provides a step-by-step guide on how to perform a laparoscopic box stitch as a technique for uterosacral ligament suspension as an apical native tissue option for patients with the need for post hysterectomy apical prolapse.


This video demonstrates a novel box-stitch technique of laparoscopic post-hysterectomy uterosacral ligament suspension as a native tissue option for minimally invasive reconstructive surgery. The procedure is a reasonable option to address apical prolapse in patients who do not desire or who are unable to have synthetic or biologic mesh placed for restorative reconstructive prolapse surgery.


Laparoscopic Native tissue repair Apical prolapse 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest


Supplementary material


(MP4 24,723 kb)


  1. 1.
    Filmar, G.A., et al., Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and sacral colpopexy: results and complications. Int Urogynecol J, 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rardin CR, et al. Uterosacral colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(5):273–80.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turner LC, Lavelle ES, Shepherd JP. Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016 May;27(5):797–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vallabh-Patel V, Saiz C, Salamon C. Subjective and objective outcomes of robotic and vaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(6):420–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lin LL, Phelps JY, Liu CY. Laparoscopic vaginal vault suspension using uterosacral ligaments: a review of 133 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(3):216–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wyman AM, Rodrigues Jr AA, Hahn L, Greene KA, Bassaly R, Hart S, Miladinovic B, Hoyte L. Estimated levator ani subtended volume: a novel assay for predicting surgical failure after uterosacral ligament suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(5):611.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison M. Wyman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lindsey Hahn
    • 1
  • Emad Mikhail
    • 1
  • Stuart Hart
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations