Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Numerous studies have found that the short-term results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse are safe and effective. This study evaluates the long-term results of the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy operation between the urology and gynecology branches.

Methods

A prospective study enrolling 206 patients was conducted to evaluate laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as a surgical treatment for vaginal vault prolapse from 2011 to 2014. Two different surgical branches (urology and gynecology) applied laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy to their patients with their own techniques. The long-term results were assessed postoperatively after 4 years by pelvic examinations, including the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q) and quality-of-life assessments using validated questionnaires.

Results

A total of 190 patients (94 urology and 96 gynecology patients) received a full clinical follow-up examination between April 2014–June 2018. Postoperative pelvic organ prolapse recurrence rates in each compartment were similar in both groups during the 4 years; 87.2% of the urology and 86.5% of the gynecology patients had no prolapse in any compartment according to the POP-Q system. The reoperation rate was 5.3% for the urology and 6.2% for the gynecology group. Mesh erosion was detected in two patients in both groups. Three patients responded to local estrogen therapy, and we removed the mesh vaginally in one patient. The subjective cure rate was 89.4% in the urology and 88.5% in the gynecology group after 4 years.

Conclusions

Although different surgical branches perform laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with their own techniques, long-term anatomical and functional results are similar between the branches. From a urogynecological point of view, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a gold standard surgical procedure that can be performed by both urologists and gynecologists with similar long-term outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in US women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cvach K, Dwyer P. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: abdominal and vaginal approaches. World J Urol. 2012;30(4):471–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0776-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, et al. Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a three-year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(3):235.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):891–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse, FDA, July 2011 https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262760.pdf. Accessed 26 Oct 2018.

  8. Gomelsky A, Dmochowski RR. Vaginal mesh update. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(4):271–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:1201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lane FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, et al. Perioperative complications and cost of vaginal, open abdominal, and robotic surgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23:27.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:CD004014.

  14. De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):3–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Patel M, O’Sullivan D. Tulikangas PK. A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Judd JP, Siddiqui NY, Barnett JC, et al. Cost-minimization analysis of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomized controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):377–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, et al. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kaplan PB, Sut N, Sut HK. Validation, cultural adaptation and responsiveness of two pelvic-floor-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7, in a Turkish population. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162(2):229–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Coolen AWM, Bui BN, Dietz V, Wang R, van Montfoort APA, Mol BWJ, et al. The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(12):1767–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):360.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sarlos D, Kots L, Ryu G, Schaer G. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1207–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hilger WS, Poulson M, Norton PA. Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309:2016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Trabuco EC, Linder BJ, Klingele CJ, Blandon RE, Occhino JA, Weaver AL, et al. Two-year results of Burch compared with midurethral sling with sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(1):31–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nair R, Nikolopoulos KI, Claydon LS. Clinical outcomes in women undergoing laparoscopic hysteropexy: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;208:71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jeon MJ, Jung HJ, Choi HJ, et al. Is hysterectomy or the use of graft necessary for the reconstructive surgery for uterine prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank our residents for their help in collecting the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Uludag University Hospital, Gorukle Campus, 16039, Bursa, Turkey

    Adnan Orhan, Kemal Ozerkan, Isil Kasapoglu, Bahadir Koşan & Gurkan Uncu

  2. Department of Urology, Uludag University Hospital, Bursa, Turkey

    Hakan Vuruskan

  3. Department of Biostatistics, Uludag University Hospital, Bursa, Turkey

    Gokhan Ocakoglu

Authors
  1. Adnan Orhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kemal Ozerkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hakan Vuruskan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gokhan Ocakoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Isil Kasapoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Bahadir Koşan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gurkan Uncu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adnan Orhan.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Orhan, A., Ozerkan, K., Vuruskan, H. et al. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology. Int Urogynecol J 30, 623–632 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-03858-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-03858-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation