Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is performed to support DeLancey’s level I in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Although several studies have been conducted on the safety, objective and subjective outcomes of LSC, the specific effect of retroperitonealisation of mesh is unknown. This study is aimed at analysing the safety, objective and subjective outcomes of the LSC without peritoneal closure of mesh.
Methods
The patients included have undergone an LSC for POP between 2004 and 2014. Retrospectively, a cohort of n = 178 was identified and asked to participate in a follow-up study. Chart research was performed. When informed consent was obtained, questionnaires were sent and the patients underwent a physical examination, including a POP-Q assessment. Each complication was scored by four reviewers for possibly being related to the non-peritonealisation of mesh.
Results
The data on the outcome cohorts were complete for safety n = 178, objective n = 124, and subjective n = 61. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score is provided in 106 questionnaires. In this study, 77 complications were observed in 49 different patients. The total success rate (no reoperation, no descent beyond the hymen and no bulging symptoms) is 59.0% with a median follow-up (IQR) of 35 months (18–51). Seventy-six patients (71.7%) described their condition as being (much) improved after LSC.
Conclusions
Three serious complications observed during the 178 LSCs were, by full consensus, thought to be possibly related to the non-peritonealisation of mesh. More than 70% of the patients found their condition to be (much) improved after the procedure.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Delancey JOL. Anatomy and biomechanics of genital prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1993;36(4):897–909.
Slieker-ten Hove MCP, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJC, Steegers-Theunissen RPM, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(9):1037–45.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.
De Boer TA, Slieker-Ten Hove MCP, Burger CW, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME. The prevalence and factors associated with previous surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and/or urinary incontinence in a cross-sectional study in the Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;158(2):343–9.
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(2):167–76.
Elneil S, Cutner AS, Remy M, Leather AT, Toozs-Hobson P, Wise B. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse without burial of mesh: a case series. BJOG. 2005;112(4):486–9.
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1324-9.
Bump RC, Mattiasson BK, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.
Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Hamilton LF, Swift SE, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(6):1467–71.
Van der Vaart CH, De Leeuw JRJ, Roovers JPWR, Heintz APM. Measuring health-related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: the urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn. 2003;22(2):97–104.
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;112(1):155–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
De Tayrac R, Sentilhes L. Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013;24(11):1859–72.
Milani ALF, Vollebregt A, Roovers JPWR, Withagen MIJ. Het gebruik van matjes bij vaginale verzakkingen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2013;157(31):A6324.
Deprest J, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Werbrouck E, Coremans G, Claerhout F. Medium term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with xenografts compared to synthetic grafts. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2362–8.
Higgs PJ, Chua HL, Smith ARB. Long term review of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112(8):1134–8.
Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: an observational study of functional and anatomical outcomes. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2011;22(1):77–82.
Coolen AWM, Van Oudheusden AMJ, Van Eijndhoven HWF, Van Der Heijden TPFM, Stokmans RA, Mol BWJ, et al. A comparison of complications between open abdominal sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:528636.
De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2016;27(3):355–66.
Granese R, Candiani M, Perino A, Romano F, Cucinella G. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: 8 years experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146(2):227–31.
Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Rommens H, Spelzini F, Vandenbroucke V, et al. Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol. 2009;55(6):1459–67.
Sangster W, Kulaylat AN, Stewart DB, Schubart JR, Koltun WA, Messaris E. Hernia incidence following single-site vs standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17(3):250–6.
Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyrén O, Hammarström M. Nonobstetric risk factors for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(5):1089–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181a11a85.
Ross JW, Preston M. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for severe vaginal vault prolapse: five-year outcome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2005;12(3):221–6.
Rozet F, Mandron E, Arroyo C, Andrews H, Cathelineau X, Mombet A, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy approach for genito-urinary prolapse: experience with 363 cases. Eur Urol. 2005;47(2):230–6.
Claerhout F, Moons P, Ghesquiere S, Verguts J, De Ridder D, Deprest J. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of a Dutch version of the prolapse quality-of-life (P-QoL) questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2010;21(5):569–78.
Van IJsselmuiden MN, Kerkhof MH, Schellart RP, Bongers MY, Spaans WA, van Eijndhoven HWF. Variation in the practice of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Dutch survey. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):757–64.
Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013;24(3):377–84.
Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.
Acknowledgements
Institutions: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen; Diakonnessenhuis Utrecht en Zeist; Diakademie.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
IUGA Annual Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, June 2017
Electronic supplementary material
Appendix 1
(PDF 118 kb)
Appendix 2
(PDF 250 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van den Akker, C.M., Klerkx, W.M., Kluivers, K.B. et al. Long-term safety, objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy without peritoneal closure. Int Urogynecol J 31, 1593–1600 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04020-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04020-w