Abstract
Introduction
Minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy is a feasible and safe option for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse in patients with prior sacrorectopexy. This video demonstrates an approach to robotic sacrohysteropexy while also adapting for a patient’s prior sacrorectopexy. Sacrohysteropexy has been shown to be a viable option in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery for the repair of uterovaginal prolapse.
Methods
This video demonstrates key steps in performing a robotic sacrohysteropexy without compromising the integrity of the patient’s prior sacrorectopexy. First, incision and dissection of the anterior and posterior peritoneum overlying the cervical stroma is carried out. Tunnels are made through the avascular plane of the broad ligament lateral to the uterine vessels, so as not to compromise uterine blood supply. The anterior and posterior arms of the mesh are attached with interrupted sutures to the cervical stroma. The presacral space is entered and dissected such that the anterior longitudinal ligament is exposed. Care is taken not to disrupt the sutures from the prior sacrorectopexy as the sacral arm of the mesh is secured with two interrupted stitches.
Conclusion
At completion of the procedure the patient had a well-supported apical compartment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, et al. Effect of vaginal mesh hysteropexy vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322:1054.
Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149.
Carramão S, Auge AP, Pacetta AM, et al. A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of uterine prolapse using polypropylene mesh: hysteropexy versus hysterectomy. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2009;36:65.
Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP. A randomized controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG. 2004;111(1):50.
Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, Saguan D, Gross C, Evans J, Lopes VV, Harvie HS, Sung VW. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470 e1–6.
Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
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.
Supplementary information
(MP4 394179 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Warehime, J., Cope, Z., Feroz, R. et al. Robotic sacrohysteropexy: an instructional video for uterovaginal prolapse repair in patients with desired uterine preservation. Int Urogynecol J 33, 3585–3586 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05260-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05260-z