AIMS: Apical defect is a pelvic organ prolapse disorder, with 5%-15% prevalence. The aim of the study was to investigate methods of laparoscopic repair of apical defect and compare them with other techniques (open, vaginal, and robotic). METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases using the following key words: apical prolapse and treatment procedures. The search was limited by using the humans filters. Only articles published in English between 2010 and 2018 were considered. Two independent authors reviewed the publications for inclusion on the basis of the following criteria: (a) use of laparoscopic techniques, and (b) apical support loss as indication for surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1002 papers were initially identified; 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four main laparoscopic procedures were found. The reported anatomical success rate (POP-Q < II stage) was 77%-100%, with patient satisfaction for pectopexy, laparoscopic sacropexy (LS), lateral ligament suspension and laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) of 96.4%-97.6%, 71.0%-100%, 66.7%-87.8%, and 95%-95.5%, respectively. Major complications included hemorrhage, bladder, ureter, and/or bowel injuries were rare. Prolapse recurrences after LUSLS and LS were reported in 13.2% and 10.4% of patients, respectively; with reoperation rate for LS 2.2%-12.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies reported anatomical and subjective outcomes, with follow-up ranging from 1 month to >7 years. Success rates for laparoscopic and abdominal corrections of apical defect were similar; laparoscopy was superior in terms of perioperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and recovery.
AIMS: Apical defect is a pelvic organ prolapse disorder, with 5%-15% prevalence. The aim of the study was to investigate methods of laparoscopic repair of apical defect and compare them with other techniques (open, vaginal, and robotic). METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases using the following key words: apical prolapse and treatment procedures. The search was limited by using the humans filters. Only articles published in English between 2010 and 2018 were considered. Two independent authors reviewed the publications for inclusion on the basis of the following criteria: (a) use of laparoscopic techniques, and (b) apical support loss as indication for surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1002 papers were initially identified; 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four main laparoscopic procedures were found. The reported anatomical success rate (POP-Q < II stage) was 77%-100%, with patient satisfaction for pectopexy, laparoscopic sacropexy (LS), lateral ligament suspension and laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) of 96.4%-97.6%, 71.0%-100%, 66.7%-87.8%, and 95%-95.5%, respectively. Major complications included hemorrhage, bladder, ureter, and/or bowel injuries were rare. Prolapse recurrences after LUSLS and LS were reported in 13.2% and 10.4% of patients, respectively; with reoperation rate for LS 2.2%-12.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies reported anatomical and subjective outcomes, with follow-up ranging from 1 month to >7 years. Success rates for laparoscopic and abdominal corrections of apical defect were similar; laparoscopy was superior in terms of perioperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and recovery.
Authors: Daniel Gagyor; Vladimir Kalis; Martin Smazinka; Zdenek Rusavy; Radovan Pilka; Khaled M Ismail Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 2.809