Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy or hysteropexy and transobturator tape combined with native tissue repair of the vaginal compartments in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of the study was to evaluate hysterectomized and non-hysterectomized patients with prolapse and incontinence. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSHP) and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (LMSCP) were done in combination with transobturator tape (TOT) and native tissue repair of the anterior and posterior vaginal compartments in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and occult, stress, or urinary incontinence (SUI). The hypothesis is that both methods are successful.

Methods

A total of 81 patients with POP were evaluated: 44 had vaginal vault prolapse (POPQ points Ba, C, and Bp were 1.2, 2.6, and 0.4, respectively) and 37 had uterine prolapse (POPQ points Ba, C, and Bp were 1.8, 1.7, and 1.3, respectively). LMSCP (which means less dissection of the vagina in its upper third and avoiding possible collision with the ureters anteriorly or the rectum posteriorly) was performed in patients with vault prolapse, whereas patients with uterine prolapse underwent LSHP. Transobturator tape (TOT) was placed in all patients to treat symptomatic and occult urinary incontinence. Systematic anterior and posterior colporrhaphy was performed in both groups.

Results

Both groups showed anatomic (p < 0.0001) and symptomatic improvement (p < 0.001–p < 0.05). Voiding was significantly improved after surgery without postoperative incontinence (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups regarding duration of surgery (p = 0.06), hospital stay (p = 0.13), blood loss (0.83), Clavien-Dindo grade 3 (p = 0.87), and Clavien-Dindo grade 1–2 (p = 0.92) complications.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive LSCP or LSHP combined with TOT and native tissue repair of the anterior and posterior vaginal compartment is a successful treatment for POP.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1201–6. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4784.16.04011-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Geynisman-Tan J, Kenton K. Surgical updates in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Rambam Maimonides Med. 2017;8:e007-17. https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse July 2011; https://www.fda.gov/media/81123/download

  4. Reena C, Kekre AN, Kekre N. Occult stress incontinence in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;97:31–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.12.011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Finazzi Agrò E, Soligo M, et al. Long-term outcomes of TOT and TVT procedures for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:1119–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3275-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years' experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:1241–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3257-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Meister MR, Sutcliffe S, Lowder JL. Definitions of apical vaginal support loss: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(232):e1-232.e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Olsen A, Smith V, Bergstrom J, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DeLancey JO. What's new in the functional anatomy of pelvic organ prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28:420–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000312.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lucot JP, Cosson M, Bader G, et al. Safety of vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh Sacropexy for cystocele repair: results of the prosthetic pelvic floor repair randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2018;74:167–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Berger MB, Kolenic GE, Fenner DE, et al. Structural, functional, and symptomatic differences between women with rectocele versus cystocele and normal support. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218:510.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaser DJ, Kinsler EL, Mackenzie TA, et al. Anatomic and functional outcomes of sacrocolpopexy with or without posterior colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:1215–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1695-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang OH, Davidson ERW, Thomas TN, et al. Does concurrent posterior repair for an asymptomatic rectocele reduce the risk of surgical failure in patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy? [ published online ahead of print, 2020 mar 7]. Int Urogynecol J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04268-7.

  14. Kanter G, Jeppson PC, McGuire BL, et al. Perineorrhaphy: commonly performed yet poorly understood. A survey of surgeons. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:1797–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2762-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lowder JL. Apical vaginal support: the often forgotten piece of the puzzle. Mo Med. 2017;114:171–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. O'Sullivan OE, Matthews CA, O'Reilly BA. Sacrocolpopexy: is there a consistent surgical technique? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:747–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2880-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cosson M, Rajabally R, Bogaert E, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, hysterectomy, and burch colposuspension: feasibility and short-term complications of 77 procedures. JSLS. 2002;6:115–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Wattiez A, Nasir R, Al Maamari B, et al. Laparoscopic prolapse surgery: types and evidence. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28:430–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Unger CA, Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, et al. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:547.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Matthews CA. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: how to avoid short- and long-term complications. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17:81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0638-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jeanditgautier E, Mayeur O, Brieu M, et al. Mobility and stress analysis of different surgical simulations during a sacral colpopexy, using a finite element model of the pelvic system. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:951–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2917-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Deffieux X, Letouzey V, Savary D, et al. Prevention of complications related to the use of prosthetic meshes in prolapse surgery: guidelines for clinical practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165:170–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gutman RE. Does the uterus need to be removed to correct uterovaginal prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28:435–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. Pelvic floor disorders network. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2358–67. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1111967.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Van der Ploeg JM, van der Steen A, et al. Prolapse surgery with or without stress incontinence surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BJOG. 2014;121:537–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Burkhard (Chair) FC, Bosch JLHR, Cruz F, Lemack GE, Nambiar AK, Thiruchelvam N, Tubaro A. EAU Guidelines on urinary Incontinence, 2020.

  27. Fusco F, Abdel-Fattah M, Chapple CR, et al. Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative data on colposuspensions, pubovaginal slings, and midurethral tapes in the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2017;72:567–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chartier-Kastler E, Reus C. Are slings still the gold standard for female stress urinary incontinence? Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:315–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.01.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. 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 

  30. Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300:1311–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The paper is supported by the Ministry of Science of the Republic of Serbia project 175092.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic of Urology, Clinical Center Nis, Bulevar Zorana Djindjica 48, Nis, Serbia

    Ivan Ignjatovic, Milan Potic, Dragoslav Basic, Ljubomir Dinic & Aleksandar Skakic

Authors
  1. Ivan Ignjatovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Milan Potic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dragoslav Basic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ljubomir Dinic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aleksandar Skakic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Ignjatovic.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Paper is supported by the Ministry of Science, project 175092, Republic of Serbia.

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

Ignjatovic, I., Potic, M., Basic, D. et al. Laparoscopic minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy or hysteropexy and transobturator tape combined with native tissue repair of the vaginal compartments in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 32, 967–974 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04519-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04519-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation