Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive literature review on current practice

Gluck, Ohad; Blaganje, Mija; Veit‐Rubin, Nikolaus; Phillips, Christian; Deprest, Jan; O’Reilly, Barry; But, Igor; Moore, Robert D.; Jeffery, Stephen; Haddad, Jorge Milhem; Deval, Bruno

doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.12.029

Cited by 54 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar conclusions are drawn by Gluck et al in a recent review: vaginal fixation of the mesh can be performed with absorbable or non‐absorbable, barbed or non‐barbed sutures, including or not the levator ani muscle posteriorly; fixation of the mesh to the promontory can be performed with non‐absorbable sutures or non‐absorbable tackers; the current literature supports the employment of type 1 mesh 17 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Sacrocolpopexy is a highly effective procedure for the correction of multicompartment POP, and a laparoscopic approach provides similar outcomes to abdominal sacrocolpopexy with the added benefits of non‐invasive surgery. Although the basic principles of this technique are well known, many technical variants have been developed that differ in the number of trocars used, trocar placement, use of special retractors, mesh type and placement, and type of sutures, all of which can influence the results of the surgical procedure 17,18,21,22 . The type of suture material employed for the attachment of the anterior and/or posterior mesh is not standardized.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An anterior TiMESH was fixed to the vesicovaginal fascia with 5‐10 2‐0 absorbable/non‐absorbable sutures. Agreement with recent literature on the employment of non‐absorbable sutures or staples for anchoring mesh on the promontory and in the absence of specific data about the best one among these, to ensure a normal tightness we fixed the anterior TiMESH to the anterior longitudinal vertebral ligament covering the sacral promontory with three CapSure™ Permanent Fixation System fasteners (Davol Inc., Warwick, RI, USA) at the level of the promontory 9,17,18 . The following parameters were documented: operative time (from first incision to skin suturing), blood loss, days catheterized, recovery time, and intraoperative and postoperative complications.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Obstructed defecation that differ in the number of trocars used, trocar placement, use of special retractors, mesh type and placement, and type of sutures, all of which can influence the results of the surgical procedure. 17,18,21,22 The type of suture material employed for the attachment of the an- In accordance with a review by Ismail et al 19 in this study, we defined procedural failure as the presence of a leading edge of the POP reaching or extending below the level of the hymen (objective recurrence) or as the presence of bulge symptoms attributed to recurrent POP (subjective recurrence). A success rate of 100% at 12 months follow up in both the groups is consistent with recent literature.…”

Section: Re Sultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of absorbable and permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy: A randomized controlled trial

Tagliaferri

Ruggieri

Taccaliti

et al. 2020

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Pelvic organ prolapse is a common cause of morbidity and decreased quality of life among women and is treatable by laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Recent data suggest that absorbable sutures are a feasible and appealing option for mesh attachment given a potential decreased risk of complications related to mesh erosion. The aim of the present study was to demonstrate the non‐inferiority of absorbable sutures to permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy. Material and methods We performed a randomized, single‐blinded, non‐inferiority trial comparing late‐absorbable sutures (group A) to non‐absorbable sutures (group B) for anterior and posterior vaginal mesh fixation during laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy at a single center in Italy. The primary outcome was prolapse correction at 12 months after surgery, defined as the absence of a pelvic organ prolapse leading edge reaching or extending below the level of the hymen and the absence of bulge symptoms. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative parameters, postoperative characteristics, and long‐term morbidity. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 16. Results A total of 150 patients with pelvic organ prolapse were prospectively randomized 1:1 into two groups (A or B). Baseline characteristics and intraoperative parameters including blood loss, operation time, and intraoperative complications were comparable between groups. The success rate was 100% in both groups and no differences in prolapse correction were observed. The rates of de novo urinary incontinence and persistent urinary incontinence were also similar between groups. The rate of mesh erosion at 12 months was 0% in group A and 4% in group B (P = .24). Conclusions Late absorbable sutures are non‐inferior to non‐absorbable sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy in terms of procedural success. Moreover we did not see any differences in terms of operative parameters, or intraoperative and postoperative characteristics, although the study was not powered to these outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Re Sultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of absorbable and permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy: A randomized controlled trial

Tagliaferri

Ruggieri

Taccaliti

et al. 2020

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The need for deep mesh placement is a debated issue. Many investigations on laparoscopic sacropexy have been performed with deep mesh implantation [20]. We lack sufficient data to provide a conclusive answer to the debated issues highlighted above.…”

Section: Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy (Lsc)mentioning

confidence: 98%

Genital Prolapse Surgery: What Options Do We Have in the Age of Mesh Issues?

Noé

2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Here, we describe the current laparoscopic procedures for prolapse surgery and report data based on the application of these procedures. We also evaluate current approaches in vaginal prolapse surgery. Debates concerning the use of meshes have seriously affected vaginal surgery and threaten to influence reconstructive laparoscopic surgery as well. We describe the option of using autologous tissue in combination with the laparoscopic approach. Study data and problematic issues concerning the existing techniques are highlighted, and future options addressed.

show abstract

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review

Tius,

Arcieri,

Taliento

et al. 2024

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLiterature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life‐related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH).ObjectiveTo summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process.Search StrategyWe performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar.Selection CriteriaWe included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery‐related morbidities were also extracted where available.Data Collection and AnalysisA random‐effect meta‐analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0.Main ResultsWe included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23–28.33; I2 = 0%; P = 0.001; anterior compartment OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.26–4.30; I2 = 12%; P = 0.007) and subjective success (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.42–7.17; I2 = 39%; P = 0.005). No differences were found regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications, sexual dysfunction, and stress urinary incontinence rate after surgery. Hysteropexy showed shorter operative time and shorter hospital length with a pool mean difference of 27.37 min (95% CI 18.04–32.71; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001) and 0.7 days (95% CI 0.24–1.17; I2 = 75%; P = 0.003), respectively. Concurrent hysterectomy was not associated with a higher rate of mesh‐related complications (P = 0.53). No major differences were found regarding recurrence and reoperation rate (P = 0.10 and P = 0.93, respectively).ConclusionsLTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh‐related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation.PROSPERO Registration NumberCRD42024537270.

show abstract

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive literature review on current practice

Cited by 54 publications

References 39 publications

Comparison of absorbable and permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy: A randomized controlled trial

Comparison of absorbable and permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy: A randomized controlled trial

Genital Prolapse Surgery: What Options Do We Have in the Age of Mesh Issues?

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About