International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 12, pp 2085–2092 | Cite as

Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacropexy on symptoms and quality of life. Predictive factors for postoperative dissatisfaction

  • Anne-Cécile PizzoferratoEmail author
  • Marion Fermaut
  • Catalina Varas
  • Arnaud Fauconnier
  • Georges Bader
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

We aimed to evaluate the medium-term results of laparoscopic sacropexy (LSP) with validated self-administered questionnaires of symptoms and quality of life and to identify pre-, intra-, and postoperative predictors of postoperative dissatisfaction.


The study included 152 women who had LSP for stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The study population comprised women who had completed the preoperative symptom questionnaire (including the PFDI-20 and ICIQ-SF). Postoperative questionnaires included those questionnaires as well as the PFIQ-7 and EQ-5D questionnaires, PISQ-12 sexual function questionnaire, and PGI-I questionnaire (to assess patient satisfaction).


In all, 92 women (60.5%) responded in the postoperative period; 75 (81.5%) had anterior and posterior mesh and 17 (18.5%) anterior mesh alone. Moreover, 14 women (15.2%) had a concomitant suburethral sling and 18 (19.6%) a concomitant subtotal hysterectomy. The mean follow-up time was 50.5 (± 20.3) months (4.2 years). PFDI-20 scores had improved significantly at 4 years (median: 47.4 before surgery vs. 34.4 afterwards, p = 0.002), and patient satisfaction was quite clear (PGI-I score = 1.8 ± 1.1). Nine women (9.8%) described recurring vaginal bulge symptoms, and 12 patients were reoperated during follow-up. Recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 8.11, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.28–28.9] and postoperative constipation (OR = 3.47, 95% CI 1.02–11.8) were strongly associated with poorer postoperative satisfaction, as was concomitant UI surgery (OR = 12.5, 95% CI 2.32–67.0).


LSP improved women’s symptoms and quality of life. Postoperative constipation, sensation of prolapse recurrence, and concomitant UI surgery were strongly associated with postoperative dissatisfaction.


Laparoscopic sacropexy Pelvic organ prolapse Symptoms Satisfaction Quality of life 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1783–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lucot JP, Cosson M, Bader G, Debodinance P, Akladios C, Salet-Lizée D, et al. Safety of vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy for cystocele repair: results of the prosthetic pelvic floor repair randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):167–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1089–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thibault F, Costa P, Thanigasalam R, Seni G, Brouzyine M, Cayzergues L, et al. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on symptoms, health-related quality of life and sexuality: a medium-term analysis. BJU Int. 2013;112(8):1143–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bovbjerg VE, Trowbridge ER, Barber MD, Martirosian TE, Steers WD, Hullfish KL. Patient-centered treatment goals for pelvic floor disorders: association with quality-of-life and patient satisfaction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(5):568 e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bui C, Ballester M, Chereau E, Guillo E, Darai E. [Functional results and quality of life of laparoscopic promontofixation in the cure of genital prolapse]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2010;38(10):563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Tayrac R, Deval B, Fernandez H, Mares P, Mapi Research I. Development of a linguistically validated French version of two short-form, condition-specific quality of life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2007;36:738–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:322–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fatton B, Letouzey V, Lagrange E, Mares P, Jacquetin B, de Tayrac R. [Validation of a French version of the short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12)]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2009;38:662–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Granese R, Candiani M, Perino A, Romano F, Cucinella G. Laparoscopic sacro- colpopexy in the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: 8 years experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146:227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sergent F, Resch B, Loisel C, Bisson V, Schaal JP, Marpeau L. Mid-term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with anterior and posterior polyester mesh for treatment of genito-urinary prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;156(2):217–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chevrot A, Droupy S, Linares E, de Tayrac R, Costa P, Wagner L. [Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on symptoms, health-related quality of life and sexuality: a 3-year prospective study]. Prog Urol. 2016;26(10):558–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Golfier F, Sesques A, Benayoun D, Krauth JS, Lunel Potencier A, Benchaib M, et al. [Laparoscopic promontofixation: defining early morbidity using a standardized method]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2014;42(6):378–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rivoire C, Botchorishvili R, Canis M, Jardon K, Rabischong B, Wattiez A, et al. Complete laparoscopic treatment of genital prolapse with meshes including vaginal promontofixation and anterior repair: a series of 138 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(6):712–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bradley CS, Kenton KS, Richter HE, Gao X, Zyczynski HM, Weber AM, et al. Obesity and outcomes after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):690 e1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wasserberg N, Haney M, Petrone P, Ritter M, Emami C, Rosca J, et al. Morbid obesity adversely impacts pelvic floor function in females seeking attention for weight loss surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(12):2096–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Washington BB, Erekson EA, Kassis NC, Myers DL. The association between obesity and stage II or greater prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(5):503 e1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thubert T, Deffieux X, Letouzey V, Hermieu JF. [Obesity and urogynecology: a systematic review]. Prog Urol. 2012;22(8):445–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wasserberg N, Petrone P, Haney M, Crookes PF, Kaufman HS. Effect of surgically induced weight loss on pelvic floor disorders in morbidly obese women. Ann Surg. 2009;249(1):72–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van der Ploeg JM, van der Steen A, Oude Rengerink K, van der Vaart CH, Roovers JP. Prolapse surgery with or without stress incontinence surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BJOG. 2014;121(5):537–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Le Normand L, Cosson M, Cour F, Deffieux X, Donon L, Ferry P, et al. [Clinical practice guidelines: synthesis of the guidelines for the surgical treatment of primary pelvic organ prolapse in women by the AFU, CNGOF, SIFUD-PP, SNFCP, and SCGP]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2016;45(10):1606–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversitary Hospital Center of CaenCaenFrance
  2. 2.Research Unit EA 7285 “Risk and Safety in Clinical Medicine for Women and Perinatal Health”Versailles-Saint-Quentin University (UVSQ)Montigny-le-BretonneuxFrance
  3. 3.Paris 13 University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, AP-HP, Jean-Verdier Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBondyFrance
  4. 4.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsIntercommunal Hospital Center of Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-LayePoissyFrance

Personalised recommendations