Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus pelvic organ prolapse suspension for surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective study

This retrospective surgical clinical study compares clinical and functional effects of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse suspension (L-POPS) for anterior and central prolapse correction. Thirty patients enrolled were affected by a symptomatic vaginal central compartment stage 2-3 prolapse and vaginal anterior compartment stage 1-3 prolapse without vaginal posterior compartment prolapse. A successful correction of anterior and central compartments prolapse without relapses were observed in both groups (LSC group versus L-POPS group). In patients who underwent L-POPS, a de novo posterior compartment prolapse was recorded. In this group, 7/15 patients complained more bowel symptoms and underwent vaginal colpoperineoplasty. In 20% (group LSC) and in 13.3% (group L-POPS) of cases, a condition of de novo urinary stress incontinence was described. LSC seems to remain the gold standard for pelvic organ prolapse correction, while further preventive strategies should be carried out in L-POPS to avoid a de novo posterior compartment prolapse.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard technique for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse; however, laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse suspension, based on the surgical technique of lateral suspension, is an innovative surgical method for the treatment of POP.What do the results of this study add? L-POPS could be considered a valid alternative to LSC for women with multiple comorbidities because of less operative time and reduced surgical risks. However, in the long follow-up period, some patients underwent L-POPS complained rectal discomfort and dysfunction on quality of life questionnaire and on clinical evaluation from six to twelve months after surgery probably due to the post-operative appearance of posterior compartment prolapse.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Considering the retrospective design and the small sample size the major limits of this study, larger, prospective, randomized studies could be encouraged to better compare a modified technique of L-POPS with posterior mesh apposition (preventing the post-operative appearance of posterior compartment prolapse) with the gold standard LSC for the correction of multi-compartment POP.