Ehud Grinstein1,2, Yara Abdelkhalek3,4, Nikolaus Veit-Rubin5, Ohad Gluck1,2, Bruno Deval6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel. 2. affiliated with Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Hôtel-Dieu de France University Hospital, St Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon. yaraabdelkhalek1@gmail.com. 4. , Paris, France. yaraabdelkhalek1@gmail.com. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 6. Department of Functional Pelvic Surgery & Oncology, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Ramsay Santé, Paris, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and ventral rectopexy (LVR) with mesh are advocated for surgical treatment of pelvic and rectal prolapse. Our study aims at showing the feasibility of concomitant laparoscopic prolapse repair by comparing perioperative and long-term outcomes of LSH or LSC with and without LVR. METHODS: This is a retrospective study carried out on 348 women operated on between July 2009 and July 2019. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) LSH only, (2) LSC only, (3) LSH + LVR and (4) LSC + LVR. POP-Q scores and satisfaction questionnaires were recorded at baseline and then annually. Outcomes were defined as subjective failure (vaginal/rectal prolapse symptoms), objective failure (prolapse to/beyond the hymen, full thickness rectal prolapse) or retreatment for prolapse. Complications were collected and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-eight women underwent laparoscopic repair for pelvic and rectal prolapse (219, 44, 66 and 19 in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 (4-174) months. Success rate for both rectal and pelvic prolapse was 90.2%. Recurrence rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.3%, 6.8%, 9.1% and 10.5% for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Significant improvement was noticed in satisfaction questionnaires in all groups. There was no difference in perioperative and late complications. CONCLUSION: The combined laparoscopic procedure appears to be safe and efficient in treating pelvic and rectal prolapse. Appropriate patient selection and available surgical expertise should determine whether to perform these procedures combined or separately.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and ventral rectopexy (LVR) with mesh are advocated for surgical treatment of pelvic and rectal prolapse. Our study aims at showing the feasibility of concomitant laparoscopic prolapse repair by comparing perioperative and long-term outcomes of LSH or LSC with and without LVR. METHODS: This is a retrospective study carried out on 348 women operated on between July 2009 and July 2019. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) LSH only, (2) LSC only, (3) LSH + LVR and (4) LSC + LVR. POP-Q scores and satisfaction questionnaires were recorded at baseline and then annually. Outcomes were defined as subjective failure (vaginal/rectal prolapse symptoms), objective failure (prolapse to/beyond the hymen, full thickness rectal prolapse) or retreatment for prolapse. Complications were collected and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-eight women underwent laparoscopic repair for pelvic and rectal prolapse (219, 44, 66 and 19 in group 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Median follow-up was 24 (4-174) months. Success rate for both rectal and pelvic prolapse was 90.2%. Recurrence rates were not significantly different between the groups (12.3%, 6.8%, 9.1% and 10.5% for groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). Significant improvement was noticed in satisfaction questionnaires in all groups. There was no difference in perioperative and late complications. CONCLUSION: The combined laparoscopic procedure appears to be safe and efficient in treating pelvic and rectal prolapse. Appropriate patient selection and available surgical expertise should determine whether to perform these procedures combined or separately.
Authors: Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; John W Lumley; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Tonya N Thomas; Emily R W Davidson; Erika J Lampert; Marie F R Paraiso; Cecile A Ferrando Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Kate V Meriwether; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Ethan M Balk; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: L Franceschilli; D Varvaras; I Capuano; C I Ciangola; F Giorgi; G Boehm; A L Gaspari; P Sileri Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-01-11 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Anjali M Ganatra; François Rozet; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Eric Barret; Marc Galiano; Xavier Cathelineau; Guy Vallancien Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 20.096