Long-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a prospective study

  • Laurent Wagner
  • Armand ChevrotEmail author
  • Elisabeth Llinares
  • Pierre Costa
  • Stéphane Droupy
Urology - Original Paper



The aim of our study was to assess the impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on pelvic symptoms, quality of life and sexual function in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary goals included the assessment of anatomical correction, recurrence and complication rates.


This is a prospective, single-center study that included 82 patients between 2009 and 2016. A clinical evaluation took place before surgery, and was repeated at 3, 12, 36 and 60 months postoperatively. Patients routinely received an anterior prosthesis, associated with a posterior prosthesis in case of symptomatic rectocele. Patients included self-administered questionnaires for functional pelvic problems (PFDI-20), quality of life (PFIQ-7), and sexual function (PISQ-12), and a clinical examination with POP-Q staging, at each medical visit.


Functional pelvic problems derived from prolapse (PFDI-20 scores) and their impact on patients’ quality of life (PFIQ-7 score) significantly improved at 3, 12, 36 and 60 months postoperatively. Improvement on sexual activity was significant at 3 and 60 months postoperatively. Effective prolapse anatomical correction (POP-Q score < 2) was found in 94.4% and 97.2% of patients at the anterior and middle stages, respectively, at the end of follow-up, but only in 80.3% at the posterior stage. Symptomatic recurrence required surgical intervention in 4 patients (5.3%).


This long-term follow-up prospective analysis confirms the good functional and anatomical results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.


Pelvic organ prolapse Laparoscopy Quality of life Sexuality Long-term adverse effects 


Author contributions

LW: Protocol and project development, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing. AC: manuscript writing and editing. EL: Protocol development, data collection and management. PC: Data collection and management. SD: Protocol and project development, data analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional Ethics Committee (08.561), and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Onwude JL (2012) Genital prolapse in women. BMJ Clin Evid 14:817Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N (2010) Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 116:1096–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, Slack M, Scott P, Waterfield M (2013) A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J 24:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY (2017) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 28:1469–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thibault F, Costa P, Thanigasalam R, Seni G, Brouzyine M, Cayzergues L, De Tayrac R, Droupy S, Wagner L (2013) Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on symptoms, health-related quality of life and sexuality: a medium-term analysis: Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on women with symptomatic UGP. BJU Int 112:1143–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perez T, Crochet P, Descargues G, Tribondeau P, Soffray F, Gadonneix P, Loundou A, Baumstarck-Barrau K (2011) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for management of pelvic organ prolapse enhances quality of life at one year: a prospective observational study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18:747–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chevrot A, Droupy S, Linares E, de Tayrac R, Costa P, Wagner L (2016) Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on symptoms, health-related quality of life and sexuality: A 3-year prospective study. Prog Urol 26:558–565. (Article in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sergent F, Resch B, Loisel C, Bisson V, Schaal JP, Marpeau L (2011) Mid-term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with anterior and posterior polyester mesh for treatment of genito-urinary prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 156:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Spino C, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114:600–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fatton B, Letouzey V, Lagrange E, Mares P, Jacquetin B, de Tayrac R (2009) 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 (Paris) 38:662–667. (Article in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Tayrac R, Deval B, Fernandez H, Marès P, Mapi Research Institute (2007) 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 (Paris) 36:738–748. (Article in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Rommens H, Spelzini F, Vandenbroucke V, Coremans G, Deprest J (2009) Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol 55:1459–1467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sarlos D, Kots L, Ryu G, Schaer G (2014) Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 25:1207–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Handa VL, Harvey L, Cundiff GW, Siddique SA, Kjerulff KH (2004) Sexual function among women with urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:751–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tok EC, Yasa O, Ertunc D, Savas A, Durukan H, Kanik A (2010) The effect of pelvic organ prolapse on sexual function in a general cohort of women. J Sex Med 7:3957–3962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zielinski R, Low LK, Tumbarello J, Miller JM (2009) Body image and sexuality in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Urol Nurs 29:239–246Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laganà AS, La Rosa VL, Rapisarda AMC, Vitale SG (2018) Pelvic organ prolapse: the impact on quality of life and psychological well-being. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 39:164–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Salamon CG, Lewis CM, Priestley J, Culligan PJ (2014) Sexual function before and 1 year after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 20:44–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lucot JP, Fritel X, Debodinance P, Bader G, Cosson M, Giraudet G, Collinet P, Rubod C, Fernandez H, Fournet S, Lesavre M, Deffieux X, Faivre E, Trichot C, Demoulin G, Jacquetin B, Savary D, Botchorichvili R, Campagne Loiseau S, Salet-Lizee D, Villet R, Gadonneix P, Delporte P, Ferry P, Aucouturier JS, Thirouard Y, de Tayrac R, Fatton B, Wagner L, Nadeau C, Wattiez A, Garbin O, Youssef Azer Akladios C, Thoma V, Baulon Thaveau E, Saussine C, Hermieu JF, Delmas V, Blanc S, Tardif D, Fauconnier A, GROG (2013) PROSPERE randomized controlled trial: laparoscopic sacropexy versus vaginal mesh for cystocele POP repair. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 42:334–341. (Article in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P (2011) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:360.e1–360.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fatton B, Savary D, Velemir L, Amblard J, Accoceberry M, Jacquetin B (2009) Sexual outcome after pelvic reconstructive surgery. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 37:140–159. (Article in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Su TH, Lau HH, Huang WC, Chen SS, Lin TY, Hsieh CH, Yeh CY (2009) Short term impact on female sexual function of pelvic floor reconstruction with the Prolift procedure. J Sex Med 6:3201–3207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vitale SG, Caruso S, Rapisarda AM, Valenti G, Rossetti D, Cianci S, Cianci A (2016) Biocompatible porcine dermis graft to treat severe cystocele: impact on quality of life and sexuality. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vitale SG, Laganà AS, Noventa M, Giampaolino P, Zizolfi B, Butticè S, La Rosa VL, Gullo G, Rossetti D (2018) Transvaginal bilateral sacrospinous fixation after second recurrence of vaginal vault prolapse: efficacy and impact on quality of life and sexuality. Biomed Res Int 2018:28 5727165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caruso S, Bandiera S, Cavallaro A, Cianci S, Vitale SG, Rugolo S (2010) Quality of life and sexual changes after double transobturator tension-free approach to treat severe cystocele. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 151:106–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Higgs PJ, Chua H-L, Smith ARB (2005) Long term review of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. BJOG 112:1134–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gadonneix P, Ercoli A, Salet-Lizée D, Cotelle O, Bolner B, Van Den Akker M, Villet R (2004) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with two separate meshes along the anterior and posterior vaginal walls for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 11:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Antiphon P, Elard S, Benyoussef A, Fofana M, Yiou R, Gettman M, Hoznek A, Vordos D, Chopin DK, Abbou CC (2004) Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: is the posterior, recto-vaginal. Mesh Mandatory? Eur Urol 45:655–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urology DepartmentUniversity Hospital of NîmesNîmesFrance

Personalised recommendations