INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Apical vaginal support for post-hysterectomy vault prolapse can be provided by vaginal, abdominal, or laparoscopic routes. Sacrocolpopexy is associated with higher satisfaction rates and a lower re-operation rate than vaginal sacrospinous fixation. The laparoscopic approach can reduce hospital stay and blood loss. There are concerns about the use of mesh in urogynaecological procedures, but limited data indicate a low mesh complication rate with sacrocolpopexy (0-5%). This study was aimed at establishing the incidence of complications following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at a large tertiary hospital. Cases were identified from coding data, theatre logs and the national urogynaecology procedure database. Data were gathered from theatre records, patient notes and the national database. Demographic data, concomitant procedures performed, duration of surgery, intra-operative complications, change in pelvic organ prolapse quantification point C, duration of stay, late complications and further urogynaecological surgery were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 660 patients underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy between 2005 and 2017 (median time from surgery 4 years 3 months). Five cases (0.7%) developed vaginal mesh exposure. Two were successfully managed conservatively with topical oestrogen. Three required surgical excision of the mesh. Four patients (0.6%) presented with erosion of non-absorbable vaginal sutures. Two were successfully managed conservatively with topical oestrogen and oral antibiotics. Two were managed with vaginal suture excision. CONCLUSIONS: This large series suggests that laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy might confer a low risk of mesh exposure. Together with good anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a safe option for patients presenting with post-hysterectomy vault prolapse.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Apical vaginal support for post-hysterectomy vault prolapse can be provided by vaginal, abdominal, or laparoscopic routes. Sacrocolpopexy is associated with higher satisfaction rates and a lower re-operation rate than vaginal sacrospinous fixation. The laparoscopic approach can reduce hospital stay and blood loss. There are concerns about the use of mesh in urogynaecological procedures, but limited data indicate a low mesh complication rate with sacrocolpopexy (0-5%). This study was aimed at establishing the incidence of complications following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at a large tertiary hospital. Cases were identified from coding data, theatre logs and the national urogynaecology procedure database. Data were gathered from theatre records, patient notes and the national database. Demographic data, concomitant procedures performed, duration of surgery, intra-operative complications, change in pelvic organ prolapse quantification point C, duration of stay, late complications and further urogynaecological surgery were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 660 patients underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy between 2005 and 2017 (median time from surgery 4 years 3 months). Five cases (0.7%) developed vaginal mesh exposure. Two were successfully managed conservatively with topical oestrogen. Three required surgical excision of the mesh. Four patients (0.6%) presented with erosion of non-absorbable vaginal sutures. Two were successfully managed conservatively with topical oestrogen and oral antibiotics. Two were managed with vaginal suture excision. CONCLUSIONS: This large series suggests that laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy might confer a low risk of mesh exposure. Together with good anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a safe option for patients presenting with post-hysterectomy vault prolapse.
Authors: Susanne D Thys; Anne- Lotte Coolen; Ingrid R Martens; Herman P Oosterbaan; Jan- Paul W R Roovers; Ben- Willem Mol; Marlies Y Bongers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eoin MacCraith; Eoghan M Cunnane; Michael Joyce; James C Forde; Fergal J O'Brien; Niall F Davis Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Anique M J van Oudheusden; Josephine Eissing; Ivon M Terink; Maarten D H Vink; Sander M J van Kuijk; Marlies Y Bongers; Anne-Lotte W M Coolen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 1.932