Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Female Genitourinary and Pelvic Floor Reconstruction

  • 282 Accesses

Abstract

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy is becoming a popular alternative to open vaginal vault suspension. Minimally invasive techniques aim to reproduce the excellent outcomes of open sacrocolpopexy, but with shorter hospital stays, and decreased complication rates. Appropriate patient selection and preoperative evaluation are fundamental to maximize both subjective and objective success of the procedure. Patients’ expectations and quality of life goals should be considered alongside the surgeon’s skillset when deciding on the most appropriate surgical technique for prolapse repair. Careful surgical technique, with attention payed to the essential segments of the surgery can minimize risks of complications. Patient outcomes are generally similar to open technique, and major complications are comparable. Length of hospital stay seems to be lower with minimally invasive techniques, although costs may be higher. It is important to weigh the patient’s needs, goals, and potential risks when planning any surgical intervention.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 649.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 999.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lane FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-196207000-00009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Di Marco DS, Chow GK, Gettman MT, Elliott DS. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Urology. 2004;63(2):373–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2003.09.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Visco AG, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1557–66. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa054208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Nager CW, Barber MD, Kenton K, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1111967.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ost MC, Tan BJ, Lee BR. Urological laparoscopy: basic physiological considerations and immunological consequences. J Urol. 2005;174(4 Pt 1):1183–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000173102.16381.08.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Arvizo C, Mehta ST, Yunker A. Adverse events related to Trendelenburg position during laparoscopic surgery: recommendations and review of the literature. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(4):272–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/gco.0000000000000471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Matthews CA, Geller EJ, Henley BR, Kenton K, Myers EM, Dieter AA, et al. Permanent compared with absorbable suture for vaginal mesh fixation during total hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(2):355–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003884.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, Luber KM, Lukacz ES, Brown HW, et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):649–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2566-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Good MM, Abele TA, Balgobin S, Schaffer JI, Slocum P, McIntire D, et al. Preventing L5-S1 discitis associated with sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(2 Pt 1):285–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827c61de.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shatkin-Margolis A, Merchant M, Margulies RU, Ramm O. Titanium surgical tacks: are they safe? Do they work? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(1):36–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. White AB, Carrick KS, Corton MM, McIntire DD, Word RA, Rahn DD, et al. Optimal location and orientation of suture placement in abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(5):1098–103. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31819ec4ee.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112(4):486–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00426.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. van den Akker CM, Klerkx WM, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF, Withagen MIJ, Scholten PC. Long-term safety, objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy without peritoneal closure. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(8):1593–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04020-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kulhan M, Kulhan NG, Ata N, Nayki UA, Nayki C, Ulug P, et al. Should the visceral peritoneum be closed over mesh in abdominal sacrocolpopexy? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;222:142–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.01.027.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. 2013;24(3):377–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1885-x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196(1):159–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.089.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231537c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000000006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kenton K, Mueller ER, Tarney C, Bresee C, Anger JT. One-year outcomes after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(5):382–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000300.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Illiano E, Ditonno P, Giannitsas K, De Rienzo G, Bini V, Costantini E. Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for high-stage pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective, randomized, single-center study. Urology. 2019;134:116–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1752–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.051.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang CL, Chen CH, Chang SJ. Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;33:297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04741-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2765-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;132(3):284–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.08.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ko KJ, Lee KS. Robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical compartment prolapse. Int Neurourol J. 2020;24(2):97–110. https://doi.org/10.5213/inj.2040056.028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1128–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vandendriessche D, Sussfeld J, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Behal H, Cosson M. Complications and reoperations after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a mean follow-up of 4 years. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):231–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3093-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gungor Ugurlucan F, Yasa C, Demir O, Basaran S, Bakir B, Yalcin O. Long-term follow-up of a patient with spondylodiscitis after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: an unusual complication with a review of the literature. Urol Int. 2019;103(3):364–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000494370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pacquée S, Nawapun K, Claerhout F, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Dʼhoore A, et al. Long-term assessment of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(2):323–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Matthews CA. Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: how to avoid short- and long-term complications. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17(11):81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-016-0638-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Patel M, O’Sullivan D, Tulikangas PK. A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(2):223–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0744-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Elliott CS, Hsieh MH, Sokol ER, Comiter CV, Payne CK, Chen B. Robot-assisted versus open sacrocolpopexy: a cost-minimization analysis. J Urol. 2012;187(2):638–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.09.160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Borah BJ, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB. Perioperative complications and cost of vaginal, open abdominal, and robotic surgery for apical vaginal vault prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000345.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Lua LL, Vicente ED, Pathak P, Lybbert D, Dandolu V. Comparative analysis of overall cost and rate of healthcare utilization among apical prolapse procedures. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1481–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3324-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang R, Hacker MR, Richardson M. Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment pathways for prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(2):e408–e13. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000948.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Matanes E, Lauterbach R, Mustafa-Mikhail S, Amit A, Wiener Z, Lowenstein L. Single port robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy: our experience with the first 25 cases. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(3):e14–e8. https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000000397.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Matanes E, Boulus S, Lauterbach R, Amit A, Weiner Z, Lowenstein L. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(4):358.e1–358.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ganesan V, Goueli R, Rodriguez D, Hess D, Carmel M. Single-port robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with magnetic retraction: first experience using the SP da Vinci platform. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(5):753–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01050-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Priyanka Kancherla & Natasha Ginzburg

Authors
  1. Priyanka Kancherla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natasha Ginzburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natasha Ginzburg .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Francisco E. Martins

  2. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Henriette Veiby Holm

  3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Jaspreet S. Sandhu

  4. Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA

    Kurt A McCammon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Kancherla, P., Ginzburg, N. (2023). Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy. In: Martins, F.E., Holm, H.V., Sandhu, J.S., McCammon, K.A. (eds) Female Genitourinary and Pelvic Floor Reconstruction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19598-3_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19598-3_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-19597-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-19598-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation