International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 9, pp 1475–1481 | Cite as

Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

  • Georgina BainesEmail author
  • Natalia Price
  • Helen Jefferis
  • Rufus Cartwright
  • Simon R. Jackson
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Apical vaginal support for post-hysterectomy vault prolapse can be provided by vaginal, abdominal, or laparoscopic routes. Sacrocolpopexy is associated with higher satisfaction rates and a lower re-operation rate than vaginal sacrospinous fixation. The laparoscopic approach can reduce hospital stay and blood loss. There are concerns about the use of mesh in urogynaecological procedures, but limited data indicate a low mesh complication rate with sacrocolpopexy (0–5%). This study was aimed at establishing the incidence of complications following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.


We carried out a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at a large tertiary hospital. Cases were identified from coding data, theatre logs and the national urogynaecology procedure database. Data were gathered from theatre records, patient notes and the national database. Demographic data, concomitant procedures performed, duration of surgery, intra-operative complications, change in pelvic organ prolapse quantification point C, duration of stay, late complications and further urogynaecological surgery were assessed.


A total of 660 patients underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy between 2005 and 2017 (median time from surgery 4 years 3 months). Five cases (0.7%) developed vaginal mesh exposure. Two were successfully managed conservatively with topical oestrogen. Three required surgical excision of the mesh. Four patients (0.6%) presented with erosion of non-absorbable vaginal sutures. Two were successfully managed conservatively with topical oestrogen and oral antibiotics. Two were managed with vaginal suture excision.


This large series suggests that laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy might confer a low risk of mesh exposure. Together with good anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a safe option for patients presenting with post-hysterectomy vault prolapse.


Complications Laparoscopic Mesh Sacrocolpopexy Safety 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):655–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thys SD, Coolen A, Martens IR, et al. A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(9):1171–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hagen S, Stark D, Glazener C, et al. Individualised pelvic floor muscle training in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POPPY): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9919):796–806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sarma S, Ying T, Moore KH. Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events. BJOG. 2009;116(13):1715–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lane FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD012376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frankman EA, Alperin M, Sutkin G, Meyn L, Zyczynski HM. Mesh exposure and associated risk factors in women undergoing transvaginal prolapse repair with mesh. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:926313.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(11):1689–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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. 2019;30(4):623–32.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: an observational study of functional and anatomical outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(1):77–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pironi L. Definitions of intestinal failure and the short bowel syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30(2):173–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years' experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1241–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caglià P, Tracia A, Buffone A, et al. Physiopathology and clinical considerations of laparoscopic surgery in the elderly. Int J Surg. 2016;33(Suppl 1):S97–S102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chapple CR, Cruz F, Deffieux X, et al. Consensus statement of the European urology association and the European Urogynaecological association on the use of implanted materials for treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):424–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roberts A. Consent advice no. 5, vaginal surgery for prolapse. 2009: Royal College of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King’s College HospitalLondonUK
  2. 2.Oxford University HospitalOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations