Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with polyester fiber suture: Ozerkan modification
- 151 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
Mesh-related problems are significant complications of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. The conventional technique precludes performing laparoscopic sacral colpopexy without using a mesh. We describe the Ozerkan modification for laparoscopic sacral colpopexy using a polyester fiber suture instead of a standard mesh and report 1-year objective and subjective outcomes.
Women diagnosed with stage ≥ 2 vaginal vault prolapse were prospectively recruited for the Ozerkan modification between 2015 and 2017. The primary outcome was the anatomic success of the repair, defined by objective parameters using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (stage 0 or 1). Secondary outcomes were subjective outcomes assessed with the quality of life scores.
Twenty-two women underwent the Ozerkan modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Mean operation time was 85.6 min. Mean estimated blood loss was 71 ml. One patient was lost during the clinical follow-up in the outpatient clinic up to 1 year. Nineteen of 21 patients had stage 0 or 1 prolapse at the end of 1 year. Two patients were not satisfied with their pelvic floor after 1 year. Both the objective and subjective cure rates were 90.4%. There were no bladder or bowel complications during the peri- or postoperative period.
The new modification of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy seems a feasible and safe option to avoid mesh complications in the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.
KeywordsPelvic organ prolapse Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy Vaginal vault prolapse
The authors thank our residents for their help in collecting the data.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
- 3.Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; CD004014.Google Scholar
- 5.FDA decision on urogynecologic surgical mesh implants. 16.04.2019. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/UroGynSurgicalMesh/default.htm (Accessed on 23.04.2019).
- 6.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44763673 (Accessed on 03.12.2018).
- 9.Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003.Google Scholar
- 10.189:98. http://mijid.org/”.
- 18.Baessler K, Hewson AD, Tunn R, Schuessler B, Maher CF. Severe mesh complications following intravaginal slingplasty. 2005;106(4):713–6.Google Scholar
- 22.Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, et al. Sung VW; Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar