Abstract
IntroductionLaparoscopic sacral colpopexy is the gold standard technique for apical prolapse correction but it is a technically challenging procedure with rare but severe morbidity. Laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension could be a valid technically easier alternative using native tissue.Material and MethodsIn the period from 2015 to 2018, 600 women were submitted to laparoscopic sacral colpopexy while 150 to laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension in three Italian urogynecology referral centers. We enrolled women with apical prolapse stage ≥2 alone or multicompartment descensus. To reduce allocation bias, we performed a propensity matched analysis. Women undergoing laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension surgery were matched 1:2 to women undergoing laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. The cumulative proportion of relapse-free women in time was analyzed by the Kaplan–Meier method. The primary objective of this multicenter case-control retrospective study was to compare the recurrence rate while the secondary objectives were to compare feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.ResultsThree hundred and nine women were enrolled (103 laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension; 206 laparoscopic sacral colpopexy). Median operatory time was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension group (P = 0.0001). No statistically significative difference was found in terms of estimated blood loss, admission time, intraoperative, and major early postoperative complications, postoperative pelvic pain, dyspareunia and de novo stress urinary incontinence. Surgical approach was the only independent risk factor for prolapse recurrence (RR = 6.013 [2.965–12.193], P = 0.0001). The objective cure rate was higher in the laparoscopic sacral colpopexy group (93.7 vs. 68%, 193/206 vs. 70/103, P = 0.0001) with a highly reduced risk of recurrence (RR = 5.430 [1.660–17.765]). Median follow up was 22 months.ConclusionBoth techniques are safe, feasible, and effective. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy remains the best choice in treatment of multicompartment and advanced pelvic organ prolapse while laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension could be appropriate for moderate and isolated apical prolapse when laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is not suitable for the patient or to prevent prolapse in women at high risk at the time of the hysterectomy.
Highlights
Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is the gold standard technique for apical prolapse correction but it is a technically challenging procedure with rare but severe morbidity
This is a multicenter retrospective case control study including patients with apical POP (ICS) stage ≥ 2 [1] alone or in association with anterior and/or posterior descensus who underwent to L-HUSLS (Cases) and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSCP) (Controls)
We considered as an anatomic surgical failure a POP stage ≥ 2 in any compartment
Summary
Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is the gold standard technique for apical prolapse correction but it is a technically challenging procedure with rare but severe morbidity. Its presence can have a negative impact on body image and sexuality [4, 5]. Both the incidence and prevalence of POP surgery tend to increase with age. Even though the vaginal approach continues to be the most common contributing up to 90% of surgical intervention [7], the know high rate of POP recurrence after transvaginal surgery with native tissue and the increasingly frequent reports on meshrelated complications with the consequent FDA transvaginal mesh-related litigation, have caused a decrease in the practice of this type of surgery in favor of laparoscopic abdominal procedures [8–10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
