Abstract
To determine if laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) offers better apical support with a lower exposure rate than transvaginal mesh surgery with Elevate™. This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients with apical prolapse (POP-Q point C≥-1) who underwent Elevate™ mesh repair (n=146) with patients who underwent laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (n=267). The sacral colpopexy group had a mean age of 59years and a BMI of 25.7. Patients in the Elevate™ group were older, with a mean age of 63 and a BMI of 26.3. Most of the patients of both groups presented with pelvic organ prolapse stage III (LSC 73.8% and Elevate™ 87.0%) and their mean POP-Q point C were not significantly different (LSC 1.4 vs Elevate™ 1.2cm). Operative time was longer in the LSC group (113 vs 91min, p<0.001), but estimated blood loss was lower (75cm3 vs 137cm3, p<0.001). No difference in mesh exposure rate could be found between the two groups at oneyear (Elevate™ 0.7% vs LSC 2.6%, OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.10, p=0.21). One-year objective cure rate, defined as no descent beyond the hymen, was 97.0% in the LSC group and 96.6% in the Elevate™ group (p=.81). The overall recurrence (objective, subjective recurrence or reoperation) was also not different between the groups (LSC 4.5% vs Elevate 4.8%, p=0.89). Transvaginal Elevate™ mesh delivers comparable apical support with a low exposure rate similar to that of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
