INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: It is reported that up to 60% of women would prefer to spare their uterus during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery. A reliable hysteropexy technique is therefore crucial. We aimed to describe the safety profile and initial core patient-reported and clinical outcomes of the Pilsner modification of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS) in comparison with the laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy technique (standard laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy [sLSH]) previously used in our unit. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary referral urogynecological center. All patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy between 1 January 2015, and 31 January 2022 were included in the study. Follow-up clinical, patient-reported, and imaging outcomes at the 12-month follow-up time point are presented. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included. Of these, 49 (56.3%) and 38 (43.7%) underwent sLSH and PiMMS respectively. Low numbers of perioperative complications were found in both groups with no mesh-related complications reported following PiMMS up to 12 months postoperatively. There were no apical compartment failures in either group. There were 8 (17.0%) vs 1 (2.7%) anterior compartment failures (Ba ≤ -1) in the sLSH and PiMMS groups respectively (p = 0.07) at 12 months. At the 1-year follow-up, 42 (89.4%) patients reported a Patient Global Impression of Improvement score of ≤ 2 in the sLSH groups compared with 35 (94.6%) patients following PiMMS. CONCLUSIONS: The PiMMS technique seems to have comparable safety profile and patient-reported outcomes with the sLSH technique. However, there is a trend toward reduced anterior compartment failures with this modification. The findings of this preliminary report need to be re-evaluated in a well-powered prospective study.

Biomedical Centre Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Staré Město Czechia

Center for Pelvic Floor Disorders Pilsen Czechia

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Faculty Hospital Trenčín Slovakia

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Alej Svobody 76 304 60 Pilsen Czechia

Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics University Hospital Pilsen Czechia

See more in PubMed

Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1783–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9 . PubMed DOI

Smith FJ, Holman CDJ, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1096–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729 . PubMed DOI

Miller BJ, Seman EI, O’Shea RT, et al. Recent trends in the management of pelvic organ prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:117–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12835 . PubMed DOI

Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:795–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3476-3 . PubMed DOI

Lyatoshinsky P, Fünfgeld C, Popov A, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse patients’ attitudes and preferences regarding their uterus: comparing German- and Russian-speaking women. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:2077–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03918-9 . PubMed DOI PMC

Van IJsselmuiden MN, Detollenaere RJ, Gerritse MBE, et al. Dutch women’s attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;220:79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.11.016 . PubMed DOI

Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:470.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003 . PubMed DOI

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

Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, et al. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;7(7):CD012376. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012376.pub2 . PubMed DOI

Rahmanou P, White B, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 1- to 4-year follow-up of women postoperatively. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:131–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2209-5 . PubMed DOI

Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, et al. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:38.e1–11. PubMed DOI

Kalis V, Rusavy Z, Ismail KM. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:1277–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04150-1 . PubMed DOI

Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay management for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;244:60–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.049 . PubMed DOI

Gagyor D, Kalis V, Smazinka M, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study). BMC Womens Health. 2021;21:72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01208-5 . PubMed DOI PMC

Gracia M, Perellõ M, Bataller E, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:654–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22641 . PubMed DOI

Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:2069–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1 . PubMed DOI

Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, 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;27:655–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y . PubMed DOI

Smazinka M, Kalis V, Havir M, et al. Obesity and its long-term impact on sacrocolpopexy key outcomes (OBELISK). Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:1655–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04076-8 . PubMed DOI

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;185:1388–95. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.118659 . PubMed DOI

Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, et al. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23:322–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20041 . 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;21:523–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5 . PubMed DOI

Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1324-9 . PubMed DOI

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae . PubMed DOI PMC

Izett-Kay ML, Aldabeeb D, Kupelian AS, et al. Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:2595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04396-0 . PubMed DOI PMC

Nightingale G, Phillips C. Long-term safety and efficacy of laparoscopically placed mesh for apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32:871–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04374-6 . PubMed DOI

Fitzgerald JJ, Sokol ER, Rardin CR, et al. Long-term outcomes after vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study (eVAULT). Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28:E215–21. PubMed DOI

Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33:359–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04865-0 . PubMed DOI

Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Maher C, et al. Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018;8(8):CD013108.

Anglim B, O’Sullivan O, O’Reilly B. How do patients and surgeons decide on uterine preservation or hysterectomy in apical prolapse? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:1075–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3685-4 . PubMed DOI

Rusavy Z, Grinstein E, Gluck O, et al. Long-term development of surgical outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with anterior and posterior mesh extension. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34:191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05102-y . PubMed DOI