BACKGROUND: Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH + LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH + LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH + LSC or TLH + LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. RESULTS: In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH + LSC n = 208 and TLH + LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p = 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.

Biomedical Center Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Pilsen Czech Republic

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Pilsen Czech Republic

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry Palacky University and Faculty Hospital Olomouc Czech Republic

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University Hospital Pilsen Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:795–806. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.602. PubMed DOI

Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1201–1206. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286. PubMed DOI PMC

Obinata D, Yamaguchi K, Ito A, Murata Y, Ashikari D, Igarashi T, et al. Lower urinary tract symptoms in female patients with pelvic organ prolapse: efficacy of pelvic floor reconstruction. Int J Urol. 2014;21:301–307. doi: 10.1111/iju.12281. PubMed DOI

Handa VL, Cundiff G, Chang HH, Helzlsouer KJ. Female sexual function and pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1045–1052. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31816bbe85. PubMed DOI PMC

Slieker-ten Hove MCP, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJC, Steegers-Theunissen RPM, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:1037–1045. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0902-1. PubMed DOI PMC

Adjoussou SA, Bohoussou E, Bastide S, Letouzey V, Fatton B, de Tayrac R. Prévalence des troubles fonctionnels et associations anatomo-fonctionnelles chez les femmes présentant un prolapsus génital. Progrès en Urol. 2014;24:511–517. doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2013.11.015. PubMed DOI

Lucassen EA, la Chapelle CF, Krouwel E, Groeneveld M. Renal failure caused by severe pelvic organ prolapse. BMJ Case Rep. 2019;12:e229318. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2019-229318. PubMed DOI PMC

Miyagi A, Inaguma Y, Tokoyoda T, Nakajima T, Sezaki R, Matsukawa T. A case of renal dysfunction caused by pelvic organ prolapse. CEN Case Rep. 2017;6:125–128. doi: 10.1007/s13730-017-0257-2. PubMed DOI PMC

Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, Redden DT, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U. S. Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:141–148. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000057. PubMed DOI PMC

Martan A, Svabík K, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Pavlikova M. Correlation between stress urinary incontinence or urgency and anterior compartment defect before and after surgical treatment. Ces Gynekol. 2010;75:118–125. PubMed

Digesu GA, Chaliha C, Salvatore S, Hutchings A, Khullar V. The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity tosymptoms and quality of life. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112:971–976. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00568.x. PubMed DOI

Collins SA, O’Sullivan DM, Lasala CA. Correlation of POP-Q posterior compartment measures with defecatory dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:743–747. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1643-5. PubMed DOI

Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1815–1833. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1. PubMed DOI

Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CMA. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:1445–1457. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1542-9. PubMed DOI

Davidson ERW, Casas-Puig V, Paraiso MFR, Ridgeway B, Ferrando CA. Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and patient-centered outcomes following minimally invasive abdominal uterosacral ligament and mesh-augmented sacrohysteropexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019 doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000710. PubMed DOI

Szymczak P, Grzybowska ME, Wydra DG. Comparison of laparoscopic techniques for apical organ prolapse repair—A systematic review of the literature. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38:2031–2050. doi: 10.1002/nau.24115. PubMed DOI

Committee Opinion No. 578. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1134–8. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000437384.88715.03.

Urdzík P, Kalis V, Blaganje M, Rusavy Z, Smazinka M, Havir M, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey) BMC Womens Health. 2020;20:241. doi: 10.1186/s12905-020-01105-3. PubMed DOI PMC

Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:470.e1–470.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003. PubMed DOI

Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MFR, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19:103–109. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667. PubMed DOI

Cardenas-Trowers O, Stewart JR, Meriwether KV, Francis SL, Gupta A. Perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy based on route of concurrent hysterectomy: a secondary analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:953–958. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.08.010. PubMed DOI

Davidson ERW, Thomas TN, Lampert EJ, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Route of hysterectomy during minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy does not affect postoperative outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:649–655. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3790-4. PubMed DOI

Gracia M, Perelló M, Bataller E, Espuña M, Parellada M, Genís D, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:654–658. doi: 10.1002/nau.22641. PubMed DOI

Saliba E, Nisolle M, Tchente C, De Landsheere L. Doit-on réaliser systématiquement une hystérectomie subtotale dans le cadre d’une promontofixation cœlioscopique ? Gynécologie Obs Fertil Sénologie. 2019;47:549–554. doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2019.04.007. PubMed DOI

Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:93–101. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9. PubMed DOI

Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1. PubMed DOI

Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:165–194. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1. PubMed DOI

Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. Erratum to: An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:655–684. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y. PubMed DOI

Krell RW, Girotti ME, Dimick JB. Extended length of stay after surgery. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:815. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2014.629. PubMed DOI PMC

Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:1388–1395. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.118659. PubMed DOI

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. PubMed DOI PMC

Smazinka M, Kalis V, Havir M, Havelkova L, Ismail KM, Rusavy Z. Obesity and its long-term impact on sacrocolpopexy key outcomes (OBELISK) Int Urogynecol J. 2019 doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04076-8. PubMed DOI

Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z, Blaganje M, Havir M, Havelkova L, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay management for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;244:60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.049. PubMed DOI

Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:523–528. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5. PubMed DOI

Haylen BT, Maher C, Deprest J. IUGA/ICS terminology and classification of complications of prosthesis and graft insertion–rereading will revalidate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:e15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.004. PubMed DOI

Dietz HP, Haylen BT, Broome J. Ultrasound in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18:511–514. doi: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00494.x. PubMed DOI

Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, Matthews C, Park AJ, Iglesia CB, et al. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:381.e1–38.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035. PubMed DOI

Costantini E, Brubaker L, Cervigni M, Matthews CA, O’Reilly BA, Rizk D, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based review and recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.503. PubMed DOI

Stepanian AA, Miklos JR, Moore RD, Mattox TF. Risk of Mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:188–196. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.11.006. PubMed DOI

Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:205–212. doi: 10.1007/s00192-010-1265-3. PubMed DOI PMC

Kalis V, Rusavy Z, Ismail KM. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:1277–1280. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04150-1. PubMed DOI

Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy