Comparative analysis of technologies for laparoscopic correction of apical prolapse

• Anastasia A. Kozlova
• Polina S. Melnik
• Milana S. Lologaeva
• Dmitry G. Aryutin
• Liliya R. Toktar
• Dariya A. Pereladova
• Verаnika E. Pak
• Ayisha D. Shirinbekova

Abstract

According to studies, Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) ranks third among all gynecological diseases and ranges from 28 to 39%, and its prevalence varies from 10% in women of reproductive age to 50% in postmenopausal women. At the same time, the apical form of the defect, being the most common among all known forms, is recorded in 5–15% of women.

The development of polypropylene materials has led to an improvement in the quality of surgical treatment, a decrease in postoperative complications and a reduction in the number of relapses. It is worth noting that in recent years a commitment to minimally invasive methods, such as conventional or robot-assisted laparoscopy, has been established.

A bunch of studies has been published in the last decade investigating some aspects of laparoscopic lateral fixation in cases of POP.

The aim of this study was to summarize data about anatomical and functional outcomes, intra- and postoperative complications of laparoscopic access for the treatment of genial prolapse.

Keywords: lateral suspension; laparoscopic lateral suspension; robotic lateral suspension; lateral colposuspension; lateral hysteropexy; pelvic organ prolapse; pelvic organ disease

REFERENCES

1. 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 (3): 795–806.

2. Kale A., Biler A., Terzi H., Usta T., Kale E. Laparoscopic pectopexy: initial experience of single center with a new technique for apical prolapse surgery. Int Braz J Urol. 2017; 43 (5): 903–9.

3. Barber M.D., Brubaker L., Burgio K.L., Richter H.E., Nygaard I., Weidner A.C.,et al.; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014; 311 (10): 1023–34.

4. de Mattos Lourenco T.R., Pergialiotis V., Duffy J.M.N., Durnea C., Elfituri A., Haddad J.M., et al. A systematic review on reporting outcomes and outcome measures in trials on synthetic mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse: urgent action is needed to improve quality of research. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019; 38 (2): 509–24.

5. Trochez R.D., Lane S., Duckett J.; BSUG. The use of synthetic mesh for vaginal prolapse in the UK: a review of cases submitted to the British Society of Urogynaecology database. Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 29 (6): 899–904.

6. Slopnick E.A., Hijaz A.K., Henderson J.W., Mahajan S.T., Nguyen C.T., Kim S.P. Outcomes of minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy with resident operative involvement. Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 29 (10): 1537–42.

7. Barber M.D., Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24 (11): 1783–90.

8. Wu J.M., Matthews C.A., Conover M.M., Pate V., Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123 (6): 1201–6.

9. Giri A., Hartmann K.E., Hellwege J.N., Velez Edwards D.R., Edwards T.L. Obesity and pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217 (1): 11–26.e3.

10. Haj Yahya R., Chill H.H., Herzberg S., Asfour A., Lesser S., Shveiky D. Anatomical outcome and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic uterosacral ligament hysteropexy for anterior and apical prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018; 24 (5): 352–5.

11. DeLancey J.O. What’s new in the functional anatomy of pelvic organ prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 28 (5): 420–9.

12. Petros P.E., Ulmsten U.I. An integral theory of female urinary incontinence. Experimental and clinical considerations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1990; 153: 7–31.

13. Ross W.T., Meister M.R., Shepherd J.P., Olsen M.A., Lowder J.L. Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217 (4): 436.e1–8.

14. Elliott C.S., Yeh J., Comiter C.V., Chen B., Sokol E.R. The predictive value of a cystocele for concomitant vaginal apical prolapse. J Urol. 2013; 189 (1): 200–3.

15. Good M.M., Abele T.A., Balgobin S., Montoya T.I., McIntire D., Corton M.M. Vascular and ureteral anatomy relative to the midsacral promontory. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208 (6): 486.e1–7.

16. Veit-Rubin N., Dubuisson J.B., Gayet-Ageron A., Lange S., Eperon I., Dubuisson J. Patient satisfaction after laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: outcome report of a continuous series of 417 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28 (11): 1685–93.

17. Coolen A.W.M., van Oudheusden A.M.J., Mol B.W.J., van Eijndhoven H.W.F., Roovers J.W.R., Bongers M.Y. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28 (10): 1469–79.

18. Anger J.T., Mueller E.R., Tarnay C., Smith B., Stroupe K., Rosenman A., et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123 (1): 5–12.

19. Anapolski M., Schiermeier S., Noé G.K. Pectopexy: first operative data from a multi-center international trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Congress of European Urogynaecological Association, 2018 Oct 25–27. Milano: EUGA, 2018. Abstract No. 19.

20. Dubuisson J., Eperon I., Dällenbach P., Dubuisson J.B. Laparoscopic repair of vaginal vault prolapse by lateral suspension with mesh. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287 (2): 307–12.

21. Biler A., Ertas I.E., Tosun G., Hortu I., Turkay U., Gultekin O.E., et al. Perioperative complications and short-term outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, and laparoscopic pectopexy for apical prolapse. Int Braz J Urol. 2018; 44 (5): 996–1004.

22. Maher C.F., Feiner B., DeCuyper E.M., Nichlos C.J., Hickey K.V., O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse:

a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204 (4): 360.e1–7.

23. Boudy A.S., Thubert T., Vinchant M., Hermieu J.F., Villefranque V., Deffieux X.

Outcomes of laparoscopic sacropexy in women over 70: a comparative study. Eur

J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016; 207: 178–83

24. Joukhadar R., Baum S., Radosa J., et al. Safety and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic sacropexy: a systematic analysis and a comparison with laparoscopic hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 295 (3): 641–9. 


25. Turner L.C., Lavelle E.S., Shepherd J.P. Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27 (5): 797–803. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2897-0 Epub 2015 Dec 12.

26. Filmar G.A., Fisher H.W., Aranda E., Lotze P.M. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and sacral colpopexy: results and complications. Int Urogynecol

J. 2014; 25 (12): 1645–53.

27. Haj-Yahya R., Chill H.H., Levin G., Reuveni-Salzman A., Shveiky D. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament hysteropexy vs total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for anterior and apical prolapse: surgical outcome and patient satisfaction. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020; 27 (1): 88–93.

28. Interventional procedures guidance NICE, March 2018, Laparoscopic mesh pectopexy for apical prolapse of the uterus or vagina.

29. Soluyanov M.Yu., Lyubarsky M.S., Koroleva E.G., Rakitin F.A. Mistakes and complications of surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse using synthetic materials. Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya [Successes of Modern Natural Science]. 2012; (10): 48–52. (in Russian)

30. Smith B.C., Crisp C.C., Kleeman S.D., Yook E., Pauls R.N. Uterosacral ligament suspension versus robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019; 25 (2): 93–8.

31. Veit-Rubin N., Dubuisson J., Constantin F., Lange S., Eperon I., Gomel V., et al. Uterus preservation is superior to hysterectomy when performing laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30 (4): 557–64.

32. Filimonov V.B., Vasin R.V., Vasina I.V. Pectopexie as a method of a correction of an apical prolapse of genitalia. Experimental and clinical urology. 2019; (4): 139–44. (in Russian) URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/pektopeksiya-kak-sposob-korrektsii-apikalnogo-prolapsa-genitaliy (date of access July 04,

2023).

33. Dällenbach P., De Oliveira S.S., Marras S., Boulvain M. Incidence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic repair of pelvic organ prolapse by lateral suspension with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27 (9): 1347–55

34. Katayama H., Kurokawa Y., Nakamura K., Ito H., Kanemitsu Y., Masuda N., et al. Extended Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: Japan Clinical Oncology Group postoperative complications criteria. Surg Today. 2016; 46 (6): 668–85.

35. Lucot J.P., Cosson M., Bader G., Debodinance P., Akladios C., Salet-Lizée D., et al. Safety of vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy for cystocele repair: results of the prosthetic pelvic floor repair randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2018; 74 (2): 167–76.

36. Bojahr B., Tchartchian G., Waldschmidt M., Schollmeyer T., De Wilde R.L. Laparoscopic sacropexy: a retrospective analysis of perioperative complications and a7atomical outcomes. JSLS. 2012; 16 (3): 428–36.

35. Cucinella G., Calagna G., Romano G., Di Buono G., Gugliotta G., Saitta S., et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case-control study. G Chir. 2016; 37 (3): 113–7.

38. Banerjee C., Noé K.G. Laparoscopic pectopexy: a new technique of prolapse surgery for obese patients. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011; 284 (3): 631–5.

39. Cosma S., Petruzzelli P., Chiadò Fiorio Tin M., Parisi S., Olearo E., Fassio F.,

et al. Simplified laparoscopic sacropexy avoiding deep vaginal dissection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018; 143 (2): 239–45.

40. Wu J.M., Vaughan C.P., Goode P.S., Redden D.T., Burgio K.L., Richter H.E.,

et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123 (1): 141–8.

41. Beer M., Kuhn A. Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005; 119 (2): 144–55.

42. Noé K.G., Spüntrup C., Anapolski M. Laparoscopic pectopexy: a randomised comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpo-cervicopexy to the new laparoscopic pectopexy. Short-term postoperative results. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287 (2): 275–80.

43. Noé K.G., Schiermeier S., Alkatout I., Anapolski M. Laparoscopic pectopexy: a prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpocervicopexy with the new laparoscopic pectopexy-postoperative results and intermediate-term follow-up in a pilot study. J Endourol. 2015; 29 (2): 210–5.

44. Liu C.K., Tsai C.P., Chou M.M., Shen P.S., Chen G.D., Hung Y.C., et al.

A comparative study of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and total vaginal mesh procedure using lightweight polypropylene meshes for prolapse repair. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 53 (4): 552–8.

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)