Hélder Ferreira1,2,3, Carlos Ferreira4, Cristina Nogueira-Silva2,3,5, Antonio Tomé1, Serafim Guimarães1, Jorge Correia-Pinto2,3,6. 1. 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centro Hospitalar do Porto , Porto, Portugal . 2. 2 Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho , Braga, Portugal . 3. 3 ICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory , Braga, Guimarães, Portugal . 4. 4 Department of Urology, Hospital Pedro Hispano , Matosinhos, Portugal . 5. 5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital de Braga , Braga, Portugal . 6. 6 Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hospital de Braga , Braga, Portugal .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: We aim to compare clinical and surgical outcomes between minilaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (MLSC) and conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). As far as we know, no comparative study exists between these two minimal invasive procedures to correct vaginal prolapse. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational and comparative study with 20 individuals submitted to vaginal vault prolapse correction between June and December of 2014 in our tertiary referral unit. Nine women were submitted to 3-mm MLSC and the others were approached by a standard 5-mm laparoscopic technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women's demographic data and prolapse grade were evaluated preoperatively using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification score. Operative parameters (surgical time, blood loss, and complications under Satava and Clavien-Dindo classification) and length of hospitalization were also compared. Postoperative pain and surgical scar satisfaction were measured using Visual Analog Pain Scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: MLSC took approximately the same time as LSC (P > .05). No significant differences in operative time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, and complications (Satava, Clavien-Dindo) were observed between both groups. Pain score after surgery was similar in MLSC and LSC (P > .05). Surgical scar monitoring at 3 months established that MLSC produced better overall results than LSC (P < .05). Anatomic cure rate was 100%. CONCLUSION: Minilaparoscopy is a feasible and attractive approach for sacrocolpopexy as it enhances cosmetics, keeping the low morbidity associated with the classical laparoscopic approaches.
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: We aim to compare clinical and surgical outcomes between minilaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (MLSC) and conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). As far as we know, no comparative study exists between these two minimal invasive procedures to correct vaginal prolapse. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational and comparative study with 20 individuals submitted to vaginal vault prolapse correction between June and December of 2014 in our tertiary referral unit. Nine women were submitted to 3-mm MLSC and the others were approached by a standard 5-mm laparoscopic technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Women's demographic data and prolapse grade were evaluated preoperatively using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification score. Operative parameters (surgical time, blood loss, and complications under Satava and Clavien-Dindo classification) and length of hospitalization were also compared. Postoperative pain and surgical scar satisfaction were measured using Visual Analog Pain Scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: MLSC took approximately the same time as LSC (P > .05). No significant differences in operative time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, and complications (Satava, Clavien-Dindo) were observed between both groups. Pain score after surgery was similar in MLSC and LSC (P > .05). Surgical scar monitoring at 3 months established that MLSC produced better overall results than LSC (P < .05). Anatomic cure rate was 100%. CONCLUSION: Minilaparoscopy is a feasible and attractive approach for sacrocolpopexy as it enhances cosmetics, keeping the low morbidity associated with the classical laparoscopic approaches.