Sacrocolpopexy: The Way I Do It

Overview

Journal Int Urogynecol J

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Urology

Date 2024 Oct 15

PMID 39404818

Authors

Usama Shahid

Zhouran Chen

Christopher Maher

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction And Hypothesis: Sacrocolpopexy (SCP) is an established surgical procedure for apical vaginal vault prolapse. There remains significant variation amongst surgeons in both the surgical steps and concomitant surgeries utilised when undertaking an SCP.

Methods: This review article is aimed at summarising the evidence and providing a detailed update of SCP in modern practice, reviewing contemporary evidence behind its indications, efficacy, outcomes, surgical steps, and complications.

Results: Sacrocolpopexy remains the gold standard for post-hysterectomy apical prolapse based on good long-term outcomes, patient satisfaction and low complication rates. SCP with concomitant total hysterectomy is not recommended owing to high rates of mesh exposure. The laparoscopic approach remains the preferred option in terms of low morbidity, quicker recovery and lower cost than alternative access options. For optimal outcomes an SCP should be performed with monofilament mesh, using absorbable sutures and with a paravaginal repair for cystocele.

Conclusions: Although SCP has become increasingly utilised for apical prolapse, its established efficacy regarding anatomical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and complications is in the context of post-hysterectomy prolapse. SCP with concomitant total hysterectomy has higher rates of mesh exposure. The efficacy and safety of SCP with sub-total hysterectomy or hysteropexy have not been clearly established and require further assessment through well-designed, rigorous randomised controlled trials.

Citing Articles

A Novel Graphene-Based Nanomaterial for the Development of a Pelvic Implant to Treat Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Seifalian A, Digesu A, Khullar V J Funct Biomater. 2024; 15(11).

PMID: 39590554 PMC: 11595893. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15110351.

References

Warner W, Vora S, Hurtado E, Welgoss J, Horbach N, von Pechmann W . Effect of operative technique on mesh exposure in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18(2):113-7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318249bd54. View

Chen Y, Hua K . Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017; 137(2):164-169. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12097. View

Vidal F, Leonard F, Andre B, Guerby P, Jourdain O . Comparative mid-term anatomical and functional outcomes following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women under and over 65: results from a prospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 297(6):1465-1472. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-018-4738-0. View

Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter H, Visco A, Weber A, Cundiff G . Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112(1):49-55. PMC: 2614233. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181778d2a. View

Gadonneix P, Ercoli A, Scambia G, Villet R . The use of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 17(4):376-80. DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000175355.48802.7b. View

Balsamo R, Illiano E, Zucchi A, Natale F, Carbone A, De Sio M . Sacrocolpopexy with polyvinylidene fluoride mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: Mid term comparative outcomes with polypropylene mesh. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 220:74-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.11.018. View

Antiphon P, Elard S, Benyoussef A, Fofana M, Yiou R, Gettman M . Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: is the posterior, recto-vaginal, mesh mandatory?. Eur Urol. 2004; 45(5):655-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2004.01.004. View

Lavikainen L, Guyatt G, Kalliala I, Cartwright R, Luomaranta A, Vernooij R . Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic noncancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023; 230(4):390-402. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.11.1255. View

Agarwala N, Hasiak N, Shade M . Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with Gynemesh as graft material--experience and results. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007; 14(5):577-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2007.03.005. View

10.

LANE F . Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962; 20:72-7. DOI: 10.1097/00006250-196207000-00009. View

11.

Zhang W, Cheon W, Zhang L, Wang X, Wei Y, Lyu C . Comparison of the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation and sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 33(1):3-13. PMC: 8739324. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04823-w. View

12.

Benson J, Lucente V, McClellan E . Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175(6):1418-21; discussion 1421-2. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70084-4. View

13.

Lallemant M, Tresch C, Puyraveau M, Delplanque S, Cosson M, Ramanah R . Evaluating the morbidity and long-term efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without robotic assistance for pelvic organ prolapse. J Robot Surg. 2020; 15(5):785-792. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-020-01177-1. View

14.

De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon L, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona M . Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 27(3):355-66. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2763-0. View

15.

Crane A, Geller E, Sullivan S, Robinson B, Myers E, Horton C . Short-term mesh exposure after robotic sacrocolpopexy with and without concomitant hysterectomy. South Med J. 2014; 107(10):603-6. DOI: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000170. View

16.

Christmann-Schmid C, Koerting I, Ruess E, Faehnle I, Krebs J . Functional outcome after laparoscopic nerve-sparing sacrocolpopexy: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018; 97(6):744-750. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13337. View

17.

Osmundsen B, Clark A, Goldsmith C, Adams K, Denman M, Edwards R . Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18(2):86-8. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318246806d. View

18.

Paraiso M, Jelovsek J, Frick A, Chen C, Barber M . Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118(5):1005-1013. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231537c. View

19.

Jeon M, Jung H, Choi H, Kim S, Bai S . Is hysterectomy or the use of graft necessary for the reconstructive surgery for uterine prolapse?. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007; 19(3):351-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-007-0442-5. View

20.

Myers E, Siff L, Osmundsen B, Geller E, Matthews C . Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 26(4):585-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2551-2. View