Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Pregnancy outcomes after abdominal sacrocervicopexy

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Various methods are used in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Organ-preserving methods are gaining importance and popularity. Although the success rates of abdominal sacrocervicopexy, which is one of these methods, are known, data on pregnancy outcomes are insufficient. The aim of this study was to investigate pregnancy outcomes after abdominal sacrocervicopexy.

Methods

This study included 72 patients with a diagnosis of POP who underwent abdominal sacrocervicopexy with monofilament polypropylene mesh in Diyarbakir Gazi Yaşargil Training and Research Hospital between 2008 and 2016. Anterior and posterior colporrhaphy operations were performed. Postoperatively, these patients were followed up for a mean of 29.68 ± 6.55 (20–49) months. Pregnancy and recurrence outcomes of those who became pregnant were recorded and analyzed.

Results

On average, pregnancies occurred 23.2 (18–30) months after the operation. During follow-up, eight patients became pregnant and gave birth without any issues or complications. One had a normal vaginal delivery, and seven gave birth by cesarean section. One of the pregnant women had a twin pregnancy. When 24 patients who underwent bilateral tubal ligation and postmenopausal (n = 2) were excluded, the pregnancy rate was found to be 17.3%. The weeks of the deliveries were 35 weeks (twin pregnancy), 38 weeks (n = 2), 39 weeks (n = 3), and 40 weeks (n = 1), for an average of 38.5 weeks.

Conclusions

Eight patients who had undergone abdominal sacrocervicopexy had healthy pregnancies and deliveries.

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. Dietz HP. Pelvic organ prolapse - a review. Aust Fam Physician. 2015;44(7):446–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Machin SE, Mukhopadhyay S. Pelvic organ prolapse: review of the aetiology, presentation, diagnosis and management. Menopause Int. 2011;17(4):132–6. https://doi.org/10.1258/mi.2011.011108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Clark A, Lapitan MC, Nelson R, Sillen U, Thom D. Epidemiology of urinary (UI) and faecal (FI) incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Incontinence. 2005;1:255–312.

    Google Scholar 

  4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Urogynecologic Society, & INTERIM UPDATE. This Practice Bulletin is updated as highlighted to reflect the US Food and Drug Administration order to stop the sale of transvaginal synthetic mesh products for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstruct Surg. 2019;25(6):397–408. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2013;4:CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fleischer K, Thiagamoorthy G. Pelvic organ prolapse management. Post Reproductive Health. 2020;26(2):79–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053369120937594.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Thompson JC, Rogers RG. Surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse and its impact on sexual function. Sexual Med Rev. 2016;4(3):213–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ko KJ, Lee KS. Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: Strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes. Investig Clin Urol. 2019;60(6):413–24. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2019.60.6.413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Joueidi Y, Gueudry P, Cardaillac C, Vaucel E, Lopes P, Winer N, Dochez V, Thubert T. Préserver ou non l’utérus en cas de chirurgie du prolapsus: revue de la littérature [Uterine preservation or not during prolapse surgery: Review of the literature]. Prog Urol. 2019;29(17):1021–34. French. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2019.05.001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ridgeway BM. Does prolapse equal hysterectomy? The role of uterine conservation in women with uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(6):802–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Delarue E, Collinet P, Sabban F, Lucot JP, Cosson M. Traitement du prolapsus génital chez la femme jeune : voie vaginale ou voie coelioscopique ? [Treatment of genital prolapse in young women: sacrohysteropexy or vaginal route?]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2008;36(10):1043–9. French. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gyobfe.2008.08.001.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Samantray SR, Mohapatra I. Successful pregnancy outcome after laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Cureus. 2021;13(2):e13087. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13087.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Busby G, Broome J. Successful pregnancy outcome following laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for second degree uterine prolapse. Gynecol Surg. 2010;7:271–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-008-0460-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Balsak D, Eser A, Erol O, Deniz Altıntaş D, Aksin Ş. Pregnancy and vaginal delivery after sacrohysteropexy. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2015;2015:305107. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/305107.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mohamed-Suphan N, Ng RK. Uterine prolapse complicating pregnancy and labor: a case report and literature review. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(5):647–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1573-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Adegoke TM, Vragovic O, Yarrington CD, et al. Effect of pregnancy on uterine-sparing pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:657–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04179-.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Barranger E, Fritel X, Pigne A. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: long-term follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(5):1245–50. https://doi.org/10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00665-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pandeva I, Mistry M, Fayyad A. Efficacy and pregnancy outcomes of laparoscopic single sheet mesh sacrohysteropexy. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(3):787–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barba M, Schivardi G, Manodoro S, Frigerio M. Obstetric outcomes after uterus-sparing surgery for uterine prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;256:333–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.11.054.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Porena M, Mearini L, Costantini E. Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nature reviews. Urology. 2010;7(11):626–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hefni M, El-Toukhy T. Sacrospinous cervico-colpopexy with follow-up 2 years after successful pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;103(2):188–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(02)00034-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis CM, Culligan P. Sacrohysteropexy followed by successful pregnancy and eventual reoperation for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(7):957–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1631-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Albowitz M, Schyrba V, Bolla D, Schöning A, Hornung R. Pregnancy after a laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: a case report. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2014;74(10):947–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1383032.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Siirt University Medical Fakulty, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Siirt, Turkey

    Deniz Balsak, Şerif Aksin & Mehmet Yılmaz

  2. Siirt Training and Research Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Siirt, Turkey

    Yasemin Aboalhasan

Authors
  1. Deniz Balsak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Şerif Aksin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehmet Yılmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yasemin Aboalhasan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Aboalhasan Y: Acquisition of data

Aksin S: Analysis and interpretation of data, article draft, manuscript writing

Balsak D: Concept, assumptions, study design, analysis and interpretation of data, article draft, manuscript writing, corresponding author

Yılmaz M: Acquisition of data

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deniz Balsak.

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

Balsak, D., Aksin, Ş., Yılmaz, M. et al. Pregnancy outcomes after abdominal sacrocervicopexy. Int Urogynecol J 33, 3449–3454 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05265-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05265-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation