Reply

Abstract

We thank Dr Tsin for his letter to the editor outlining the surgical technique of the minilaparotomy approach to sacral cervicopexy for uterine procidentia. Clearly, uterine procidentia is an important and fertile area of research; however, our trial evaluated only those with posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse.1Maher C.F. Connelly L.B. Cost minimization analysis of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and total vaginal mesh.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206: 433.e1-433.e7Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (22) Google ScholarWe look forward to reviewing Dr Tsin's future contributions on the efficacy and cost evaluation of minilaparotomy at sacral cervicopexy. We thank Dr Tsin for his letter to the editor outlining the surgical technique of the minilaparotomy approach to sacral cervicopexy for uterine procidentia. Clearly, uterine procidentia is an important and fertile area of research; however, our trial evaluated only those with posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse.1Maher C.F. Connelly L.B. Cost minimization analysis of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and total vaginal mesh.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206: 433.e1-433.e7Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (22) Google Scholar We look forward to reviewing Dr Tsin's future contributions on the efficacy and cost evaluation of minilaparotomy at sacral cervicopexy. Cost minimization minilaparotomy vs laparoscopic sacral colpopexyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyVol. 207Issue 2PreviewI read with interest the paper entitled “Cost minimization analysis of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and total vaginal mesh” by Drs Christopher F. Maher and Luke B. Connelly.1 The paper focused on cost containment for the treatment of uterine prolapse. I noticed that the authors considered laparoscopy vs the total mesh vaginal approach. This very well-done study did not mention the inexpensive minilaparotomy approach. Full-Text PDF