Advertisement

Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with polyester fiber suture: Ozerkan modification

  • Kemal Ozerkan
  • Adnan OrhanEmail author
  • Isil Kasapoglu
  • Baris Ata
  • Gurkan Uncu
Original Article
  • 151 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

The new modification of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy seems a feasible and safe option to avoid mesh complications in the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy Vaginal vault prolapse 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Supplementary material

ESM 1

(MP4 11759 kb)

ESM 2

(MP4 32821 kb)

ESM 3

(MP4 21568 kb)

ESM 4

(MP4 34500 kb)

192_2019_4042_MOESM5_ESM.mp4 (40.3 mb)
ESM 5 (MP4 41290 kb)
192_2019_4042_MOESM6_ESM.mp4 (31.9 mb)
ESM 6 (MP4 32688 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL. Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979-2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(5):501.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lane FE. Repair of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
  5. 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. 6.
  7. 7.
    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 Jul;175(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short form of two condition specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:103–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    189:98. http://mijid.org/”.
  11. 11.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hilger WS, Poulson M, Norton PA. Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bradley CS, Nygaard IE, Brown MB, et al. Bowel symptoms in women 1 year after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:642.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burgio KL, Nygaard IE, Richter HE, et al. Bladder symptoms 1 year after abdominal sacrocolpopexy with and without Burch colposuspension in women without preoperative stress incontinence symptoms. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:647.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guiahi M, Kenton K, Brubaker L. Sacrocolpopexy without concomitant posterior repair improves posterior compartment defects. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:1267.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE, et al. Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baessler K, Hewson AD, Tunn R, Schuessler B, Maher CF. Severe mesh complications following intravaginal slingplasty. 2005;106(4):713–6.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vieillefosse S, Thubert T, Dache A, Hermieu JF, Deffieux X. Satisfaction, quality of life and lumbar pain following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: suture vs. tackers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;187:51–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arsene E, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Rubod C, Cosson M. Sacral colpopexy: long-term mesh complications requiring reoperation(s). Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):353–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):688.e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Brubaker L. Sacrocolpopexy and the anterior compartment: support and function. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173:1690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309:2016.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Orhan A, Ozerkan K, Vuruskan H, Ocakoglu G, Kasapoglu I, Koşan B, et al. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):623–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maher C, Baessler K. Surgical management of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: an evidence-based literature review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(2):195–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krause HG, Goh JT, Sloane K, Higgs P, Carey MP. Laparoscopic sacral suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(4):378–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Gynecology UnitUludag University HospitalBursaTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyKoc University School of MedicineIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations