Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):655–84.
Thys SD, Coolen A, Martens IR, et al. A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(9):1171–8.
Hagen S, Stark D, Glazener C, et al. Individualised pelvic floor muscle training in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POPPY): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9919):796–806.
Sarma S, Ying T, Moore KH. Long-term vaginal ring pessary use: discontinuation rates and adverse events. BJOG. 2009;116(13):1715–21.
Lane FE. Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1962;20:72–7.
Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.
Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089–103.
Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469–79.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD012376.
Frankman EA, Alperin M, Sutkin G, Meyn L, Zyczynski HM. Mesh exposure and associated risk factors in women undergoing transvaginal prolapse repair with mesh. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:926313.
Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(11):1689–95.
Orhan A, Ozerkan K, Vuruskan H, et al. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):623–32.
Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: an observational study of functional and anatomical outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(1):77–82.
Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.
Pironi L. Definitions of intestinal failure and the short bowel syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30(2):173–85.
Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years' experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(8):1241–8.
Caglià P, Tracia A, Buffone A, et al. Physiopathology and clinical considerations of laparoscopic surgery in the elderly. Int J Surg. 2016;33(Suppl 1):S97–S102.
Chapple CR, Cruz F, Deffieux X, et al. Consensus statement of the European urology association and the European Urogynaecological association on the use of implanted materials for treating pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):424–31.
Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.
Roberts A. Consent advice no. 5, vaginal surgery for prolapse. 2009: Royal College of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baines, G., Price, N., Jefferis, H. et al. Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 30, 1475–1481 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03952-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03952-7