Situational-factors-driven recurrence rate of laparoscopic sacropexy in genital prolapse
https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2026.733
Abstract
Introduction. Laparoscopic sacropexy is widely used for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (РОР). The safety and efficacy of this procedure have been studied in many countries, but the causes of recurrence are not fully understood.
Aim: to evaluate frequency of adverse outcomes 12 months postoperative laparoscopic sacropexy and to identify associated risk factors.
Materials and Methods. The observational prospective controlled non-randomized study was conducted at the Surgical Clinic of Azerbaijan Medical University (AMU). A total of 235 patients who underwent surgery at the clinic from 2013 to 2023 were included in a consecutive observational cohort. All patients were examined preoperatively and at 1, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. All major postoperative complications and recurrences were recorded as they occurred.
Results. During the 12-month follow-up, the overall recurrence rate was 29.5 ± 2.9 %. The need for repeat surgery peaked among patients with a preoperative Ba measurement of −2 cm (12.5 ± 8.2 %). A high rate of reoperations was also observed in patients with a preoperative Ba measurement of +3 cm (11.9 ± 6.9 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 2.1–21.8 %). Reoperation rates below 2.1 % were observed in women with diverse situational factors – age < 50 years, premenopausal status, body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m², baseline Ba −2 and −1, etc. The maximum frequency of apical recurrences was 11.5 ± 3.6 % (95 % CI = 4.3–18.7 %) and occurred in patients whose preoperative D measurement ranged from −3 to +3 cm.
Conclusion. The recurrence rate after laparoscopic sacropexy varies and depends on the clinical profile of the patients. The risk of postoperative recurrence after laparoscopic sacropexy increases significantly with patient age, higher body mass index, onset of menopause, and unfavorable preoperative prolapse characteristics according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system
About the Author
R. M. Aliyeva
Azerbaijan Medical University
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan
Rahshanda M. Aliyeva, MD
165 Samad Vurgun Str., Baku AZ1022, Azerbaijan
References
1. Bojahr B., Tchartchian G., Waldschmidt M. et al. Laparoscopic sacropexy: a retrospective analysis of perioperative complications and anatomical outcomes. JSLS. 2012;16(3):428–36. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812X13462882736132.
2. Boudy A.S., Thubert T., Vinchant M. et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic sacropexy in women over 70: a comparative study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;207:178–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.11.008.
3. Yu T., Liu L. The standardized procedure, technical key points and latest progress of laparoscopic lateral suspension surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;310(3):1745–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07686-w.
4. Вишневская А.С., Болдырева Ю.А., Цхай В.Б. и др. Сравнительный анализ эффективности хирургических методов коррекции пролапса тазовых органов: сакропексии и пектопексии. Сибирское медицинское обозрение. 2024;(2):64–70. https://doi.org/10.20333/25000136-2024-2-64-70.
5. Vishnevskaya A.S., Boldyreva Yu.A., Tskhai V.B. et al. Comparative analysis of the efficacy of surgical methods for correction of pelvic organ prolapse: sacropexy and pectopexy. Sibirskoe medicinskoe obozrenie. 2024;(2):64–70. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20333/25000136-2024-2-64-70.
6. Болдырева Ю.А., Цхай В.Б., Полстяной А.М. и др. Современные методы хирургического лечения пролапса тазовых органов. Астраханский медицинский журнал. 2023;18(3):8–21. https://doi.org/10.29039/1992-6499-2023-3-8-21.
7. Boldyreva Yu.A., Tshai V.B., Polstyanoy A.M. et al. Modern methods of surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Astrahanskij medicinskij zhurnal. 2023;18(3):8–21. https://doi.org/10.29039/1992-6499-2023-3-8-21.
8. Lucot J.P., Cosson M., Bader G. et al. Safety of vaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy for cystocele repair: results of the Prosthetic Pelvic Floor Repair Randomized Controlled Trial. Eur Urol. 2018;74(2):167–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.01.044.
9. Szymanowski P., Szepieniec W.K., Gruszecki P., Netzer I. Laparoscopic hysterosacropexy in case of total uterus prolapse – case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2018;53:120–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2018.10.052.
10. Noé K.G., Schiermeier S., Alkatout I., Anapolski M. Laparoscopic pectopexy: a prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpocervicopexy with the new laparoscopic pectopexy-postoperative results and intermediate-term follow-up in a pilot study. J Endourol. 2015;29(2):210–5. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0413.
11. Serbetcioglu G.C., Simsek S.Y., Alemdaroglu S. et al. Outcomes of nerve-sparing laparoscopic sacropexy on one hundred fifteen cases. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020;49(7):101795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101795.
12. Pilka R., Gágyor D., Študentová M. Laparoscopic and robotic sacropexy: retrospective review of learning curve experiences and follow-up. Ceska Gynekol. 2017;82(4):261–7.
13. Zigiotto D., Sturiale A., Fabiani B. et al. Robotic supracervical hysterectomy and colpo-procto-sacropexy with folded titanized polypropylene mesh for multicompartmental pelvic organ prolapse – a video-vignette. Colorectal Dis. 2021;23(10):2783. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15810.
14. Mach P., Kaufold C., Rusch P. et al. Single-center study for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacropexies: a one-fits-all strategy for pelvic organ prolapse? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;306(6):2009–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06735-6.
15. Rountis A., Zacharakis D., Athanasiou S. et al. The role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of advanced uterine prolapse: a systematic review of the literature. Cureus. 2021;13(9):e18281. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.18281.
16. Rebahi C., Cardaillac C., Cosson M. et al. National survey of surgical practices: sacropexy in France in 2019. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(4):975–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04526-8.
17. Joukhadar R., Baum S.., Radosa J. et al. Safety and perioperative morbidity of laparoscopic sacropexy: a systematic analysis and a comparison with laparoscopic hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(3):641–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4240-5.
18. Malanowska-Jarema E., Starczewski A., Melnyk M. et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing dubuisson laparoscopic lateral suspension with laparoscopic sacropexy for pelvic organ prolapse: short-term results. J Clin Med. 2024;13(5):1348. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13051348.
19. Лоран О.Б., Серегин А.В., Довлатов З.А. Результаты применения современных малоинвазивных технологий в лечении пролапса тазовых органов у женщин. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2015;(2):124–30.
20. Loran O.B., Seregin A.V., Dovlatov Z.A. The clinical outcomes of the modern minimally invasive technologies in the treatment of the female pelvic organ prolapse. Eksperimental'naya i klinicheskaya urologiya. 2015;(2):124–30. (In Russ.).
21. Fritel X., de Tayrac R., de Keizer J. et al. Serious complications and recurrences after pelvic organ prolapse surgery for 2309 women in the VIGI-MESH registry. BJOG. 2022;129(4):656–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16892.
22. Dabica A., Balint O., Olaru F. et al. Complications of pelvic prolapse surgery using mesh: a systematic review. J Pers Med. 2024;14(6):622. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14060622.
23. Schulten S.F.M., Claas-Quax M.J., Weemhoff M. et al. Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;227(2):192–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.046
24. Ferrari A., Borrelli M., Moretti G. et al. Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2026;133(9):1529–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.70218.
25. Vergeldt T.F.M., Weemhoff M., IntHout J., Kluivers K.B. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8
Review
For citations:
Aliyeva R.M. Situational-factors-driven recurrence rate of laparoscopic sacropexy in genital prolapse. Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2313-7347/ob.gyn.rep.2026.733
Views:
32
JATS XML
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Email this article 