Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification

  • IUJ Video
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is the preferred contemporary procedure for the surgical management of a significant apical pelvic organ prolapse. In the presence of a uterus it is possible for the patient to have subtotal hysterectomy and cervicopexy, total hysterectomy with colpopexy or uterine conservation and hysteropexy. However, hysteropexy seems to be associated with a higher risk of anterior compartment failure compared with cervicopexy or colpopexy. It is not uncommon for an asymmetrically large anterior compartment defect to co-exist with a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse. In a cervicopexy or colpopexy, this asymmetry can be balanced by creating a de novo vaginal apex from the superior part of the anterior vaginal wall. However in a hysteropexy the attachment of the base of the anterior mesh to the vagina and cervical isthmus limits the ability to do this.

Methods

In this video we present a solution where the shape of the posterior mesh is modified to include two horizontal arms that are passed through openings in the broad ligament and attached to the cervical isthmus anteriorly.

Results

This frees the anterior Y-shaped mesh to be fixed to the anterior vaginal wall only and hence provides the required tension to create the de novo apex.

Conclusion

Prior to wide adoption, this technique should be further investigated in the context of robustly designed comparative studies.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. In: Maher C, editor. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Chichester: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1815–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MFR, et al. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19:103–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gracia M, Perelló M, Bataller E, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:654–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wong V, Guzman Rojas R, Shek KL, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: how low does the mesh go? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49:404–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15882.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Costantini E, Brubaker L, Cervigni M, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based review and recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:60–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Holt E. US FDA rules manufacturers to stop selling mesh devices. Lancet. 2019;393:1686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30938-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. [No authors listed]. Department of error. Lancet. 2019;393:2124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31093-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khaled M. Ismail.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this video article and any accompanying images.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Electronic supplementary material

(MP4 446899 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalis, V., Rusavy, Z. & Ismail, K.M. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification. Int Urogynecol J 31, 1277–1280 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04150-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04150-1

Keywords

Navigation