International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 10, pp 1455–1461 | Cite as

Uterus-sparing vaginolaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse

  • Atef DarwishEmail author
  • Mostafa Bahlol
  • AbdelGhafar Ahmad
  • Mohamed Fekry
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Our aim was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of a vaginolaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VLS) technique for treating apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Materials and methods

This was a prospective interventional case series (design classification: Canadian Task Force II3) performed in the endoscopic unit of a tertiary care referral facility and university hospital. We assessed 15 symptomatic parous women with stage ≥2 apical POP according to the POP Quantification (POP-Q) classification. Interventions comprised posterior colpotomy with mesh fixation to the uterosacral ligaments and the back of the uterus that was further fixed to the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum using a tacker via laparoscopy.


The main outcome was a significant postoperative improvement in prolapse and resultant improvement in quality of life (QoL) after VLS. Six patients required concomitant reconstructive procedures. Mean operative time for the vaginal phase was 8.54 ± 3.10 (7–12) min and 32.36 ± 8.2 (27–41) min. for the laparoscopic phase Mean duration of VLS ranged from 30 to 50 min. At the 6-months follow-up, the procedure was successful in 14 of 15 patients (93.34%); one woman (6.66%) presented with recurrence at a lower stage. Neither mesh complications nor sacral ostitis were encountered. There was significant improvement in vaginal symptoms, sexual well-being, QoL, and clinical staging after the procedure.


By eliminating all forms of intraperitoneal suturing, performing a posterior colpotomy, and the advent of tackers without evidence of sacral ostitis, VLS seems to be a simple, feasible, effective, and fast approach for treating POP.


Sacrocolpopexy Laparoscopy Apical prolapse 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest


Supplementary material


(MPG 36676 kb)


(WMV 37493 kb)


  1. 1.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mawajdeh SM, Al-Qutob RJ, Farag A. Prevalence and risk factors of genital prolapse. A multicenter study. Saudi Med J. 2003;24(2):161–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dieter AA, Wilkins MF, Wu JM. Epidemiological trends and future care needs for pelvic floor disorders. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(5):380–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R. Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1261–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nygaad IE, Mc Creery R, Brubaker L. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy :a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;104:805–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization ofterminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floordysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Price N, Jackson SR, Avery K, Brookes ST, Abrams P. Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ vaginal symptoms questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS. BJOG. 2006;113:700–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Downing KT. Uterine Prolapse: from antiquity to today. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeLancey JO, Morley GW. Total colpocleisis for vaginal eversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176(6):1228–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dällenbach P. To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery. Int J Womens Health 2015; 7: 331–343.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scarpero HM, Cespedes RD, Winters JC. Transabdominal approach to repair of vaginal vault prolapse. Tech Urol. 2001;7(2):139–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;132(3):284–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elvira BV, Brătilă PC, Andra-Teodora N. Vaginally-assisted laparoscopic Hysterosacropexy for advanced Utero-vaginal Prolapse: a series of 32 patients. ARS Medica Tomitana. 2014;2(77):63–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campos S, Billone V, Durão M, Beguinot M. BourdelN, Rabischong B, Canis M, Botchorishvili R. Complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: as harmless as they seem? Acta Obstet Ginecol Port. 2016;10(1):21–31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, van Eijndhoven HW. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised noninferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:Cd012079.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Atef Darwish
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mostafa Bahlol
    • 1
  • AbdelGhafar Ahmad
    • 1
  • Mohamed Fekry
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics & GynecologyWomen’s Health University HospitalAssiutEgypt

Personalised recommendations