Short‑term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy without mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse with apical compartment defect

Xu,Pan; Ling,Shanshan; Hu,E; Xu,Haixia; Ma,Lina; Song,Ying; Liu,Jie; Yi,Bixia

doi:10.3892/wasj.2021.138

Short‑term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy without mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse with apical compartment defect

Authors:
- Pan Xu
- Shanshan Ling
- E Hu
- Haixia Xu
- Lina Ma
- Ying Song
- Jie Liu
- Bixia Yi
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Gynecology, Jinhua People's Hospital, Jinhua, Zhejiang 321000, P.R. China
Published online on: December 6, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/wasj.2021.138
Article Number: 3
Copyright: © Xu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The present study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) without mesh in the treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with an apical compartment defect (a‑POP). For this purpose, a total of 24 patients with POP [POP quantification (POP‑Q) ≥II] who underwent LSC without mesh between January, 2019 and August, 2020 were analyze retrospectively. The duration of the surgery, intraoperative blood loss, post‑operative hospital stay, catheter removal time, post‑operative pain and post‑operative complications were recorded and evaluated. The changes in the POP‑Q scores at 3 months post‑surgery were then analyzed. The pelvic floor distress inventory short form 20 (PFDI‑20) was used to evaluate the post‑operative systemic improvement and subjective satisfaction rate of the patients. All surgeries were successfully completed. The mean duration of the surgery 135.3±31.5 min. The mean loss of blood was 22.9±15.1 ml. No injuries to the great vessels, nerves, rectum, urethra or bladder occurred. The catheter was retained for 2 days and all patients were able to micturate following extubation. The mean observation time following surgery in hospital was 7 days. The average follow‑up time was 9.4±4.0 months. According to POP‑Q scores, the anatomic cure rate of the LSC without mesh was 100%. The PFDI‑20 scores decreased from 90.6±24.6 to 55.8±18.5 (P<0.0001), and the subjective satisfaction rate was 100% (24/24).

View Figures

View References

1	Abrams P, Andersson KE, Apostolidis A, Birder L, Bliss D, Brubaker L, Cardozo L, Castro-Diaz D, O'Connell PR, Cottenden A, et al: 6th international consultation on incontinence. Recommendations of the international scientific committee: Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse and faecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 37:2271–2272. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V and Funk MJ: Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 123:1201–1206. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Wilkins MF and Wu JM: Lifetime risk of surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Minerva Ginecol. 69:171–177. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	DeLancey JO: Anatomy and biomechanics of genital prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 36:897–909. 1993.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
5	Campbell P, Cloney L and Jha S: Abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 71:435–442. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Matthews CA: Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: How to avoid short and long-term complications. Curr Urol Rep. 17(81)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Lin LL, Phelps JY and Liu CY: Laparoscopic vaginal vault suspension using uterosacral ligaments: A review of 133 cases. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 12:216–220. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Boyd SS, O'Sullivan D and Tulikangas P: Use of the pelvic organ quantification system (POP-Q) in published articles of peer-reviewed journals. Int Urogynecol J. 28:1719–1723. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Urogynecology Subgroup, Chinese Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chinese Medical Association. Chinese guideline for the diagnosis and management of pelvic orang prolapse (2020 version). Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 55:300–306. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Ugurlucan FG, Yasa C, Demir O, Basaran S, Bakir B and 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. 103:364–368. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Turner LC, Kantartzis K, Lowder JL and Shepherd JP: The effect of age on complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 25:1251–1256. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Dubinskaya A, Hernandez-Aranda D, Wakefield DB and Shepherd JP: Comparing laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 31:401–407. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Nager CW, Zyczynski H, Rogers RG, Barber MD, Richter HE, Visco AG, Rardin CR, Harvie H, Wallace D and Meikle SF: Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. The design of randomized trial of vaginal surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: Vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue vault suspension versus mesh hysteropexy suspension (the study of uterine prolapse procedures randomized trial). Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 22:182–189. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Culligan PJ, Lewis C, Priestley J and Mushonga N: Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using lightweight y-mesh. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 26:202–206. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Holt E: US FDA rules manufacturers to stop selling mesh devices. Lancet. 27(1686)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	van den Akker CM, Klerkx WM, Kluivers KB, Van Eijndhoven HWF, Withagen MIJ and Scholten PC: Long-term safety, objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy without peritoneal closure. Int Urogynecol J. 31:1593–1600. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Sato H, Abe H, Ikeda A, Miyagawa T and Sato K: Complications and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol. 9:1–5. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Mannaerts GH and van der Weiden RM: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with bone anchor fixation: Short-term anatomic and functional results. Int Urogynecol J. 23:481–486. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar