STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cumulative experience at our institution of laparoscopic pelvic floor repair to treat genital prolapse and associated symptoms. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Seventy-three consecutive women treated surgically for symptomatic genital prolapse. INTERVENTION: Surgical treatment was site specific depending on findings on physical examination. Anterior compartment defects were treated by laparoscopic paravaginal repair, laparoscopic Burch colposuspension, or transvaginal anterior vaginal repair. Defects in the posterior compartment were treated by a combination of laparoscopic supralevator repair, laparoscopic vaginal vault suspension, enterocele sac invagination or excision, and transvaginal posterior vaginal repair. Anatomic defects in the apical compartment were primarily treated by laparoscopic vaginal vault suspension and enterocele sac excision. Patients whose anatomic anomalies contained elements of anterior, posterior, and apical compartments were classified in a global group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preoperatively, prolapse was considered as an attachment or fascial defect at DeLancey level I, II, or III. Each was then quantified by the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) system and compartmentalized according to site of the major defect. Women were assessed by physical examination and repeat POPQ staging 6 weeks postoperatively and every 6 months thereafter. A standard interview was administered to assess functional status. Major complications occurred in 4.1% of women. Objective and subjective cure rates were 90% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair is an effective procedure with low morbidity. It should play a primary role in surgical management of DeLancey levels I and II attachment defects. For fascial defects, in particular DeLancey level II anteriorly and posteriorly, it should be complemented with vaginal repair.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cumulative experience at our institution of laparoscopic pelvic floor repair to treat genital prolapse and associated symptoms. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Seventy-three consecutive women treated surgically for symptomatic genital prolapse. INTERVENTION: Surgical treatment was site specific depending on findings on physical examination. Anterior compartment defects were treated by laparoscopic paravaginal repair, laparoscopic Burch colposuspension, or transvaginal anterior vaginal repair. Defects in the posterior compartment were treated by a combination of laparoscopic supralevator repair, laparoscopic vaginal vault suspension, enterocele sac invagination or excision, and transvaginal posterior vaginal repair. Anatomic defects in the apical compartment were primarily treated by laparoscopic vaginal vault suspension and enterocele sac excision. Patients whose anatomic anomalies contained elements of anterior, posterior, and apical compartments were classified in a global group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preoperatively, prolapse was considered as an attachment or fascial defect at DeLancey level I, II, or III. Each was then quantified by the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) system and compartmentalized according to site of the major defect. Women were assessed by physical examination and repeat POPQ staging 6 weeks postoperatively and every 6 months thereafter. A standard interview was administered to assess functional status. Major complications occurred in 4.1% of women. Objective and subjective cure rates were 90% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair is an effective procedure with low morbidity. It should play a primary role in surgical management of DeLancey levels I and II attachment defects. For fascial defects, in particular DeLancey level II anteriorly and posteriorly, it should be complemented with vaginal repair.