Anatomical outcomes and complications of sacrocolpopexy using Surelift Uplift mesh: A multicentric observational study.
Paola Calleja Hermosa, Clara Sánchez Guerrero, Vanessa Viegas, Miguel Rebassa LLul, Miguel Jiménez Cidre, Eduardo Morán Pascual, Carlos Errando Smet, Salvador Arlandis Guzmán, Esther Martínez Cuenca, José Miguel Gómez de Vicente, Mercedes Ruiz Hernández, Javier Casado Varela, Jorge Mora Gurrea, María Pérez Polo, Luis López-Fando Lavalle
OBJECTIVE: The study evaluated the anatomical and functional outcomes, as well as the safety data of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using a lightweight macroporous mesh. METHODS: A multicentric observational study was developed including five expert centers between March 2011 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were female patients with symptomatic ≥stage II POP (POP-Q classification), who underwent a LSC. A lightweight and macroporous mesh device (Surelift Uplift) was used. Baseline anatomical positions were evaluated using POP-Q stage. The anatomical outcomes and procedural complications were assessed during the postoperative period. Primary outcomes were anatomical success, defined as POP-Q stage ≤I, and subjective success, defined as no bothersome bulge symptoms, and no repeat surgery or pessary use for recurrent prolapse. RESULTS: A total of 325 LSCs were analyzed with a median patient age of 66 (interquartile range [IQR] 61-73). After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 46.5-89), anatomical success was found in 88.9%, whereas subjective success was seen in 98.5% of the patients. Recurrent prolapse presented as cystocele (1.5%). Reported complications were bladder (4.6%) or rectum lesions (0.6%), de novo urinary incontinence (12.9%), and mesh extrusion (1.2%). CONCLUSIONS: LSC provides significant clinical improvement and excellent anatomical results, with a low risk of serious complications for women with ≥2 grade POP in a real clinical practice setting.
Løwenstein E, Møller LA, Laigaard J, Gimbel H. Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse: a Danish cohort study with 15–20 years' follow‐up. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:119–124.
Dällenbach P, Jungo Nancoz C, Eperon I, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M. Incidence and risk factors for reoperation of surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:35–41.
US Food and Drug Administration. Reclassification of surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2016.
Lewicki P, Brant A, Basourakos SP, Qiu Y, Chughtai B, Shoag JE. Patterns in transvaginal mesh surgery after government regulation in the United States. JAMA Surg. 2022;157:542–543.
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.
Lucot JP, Cosson M, Bader G, Debodinance P, Akladios C, Salet‐Lizée D, 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;74:167–176.
Pelvic Organ Prolapse. ACOG practice bulletin, number 214. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:e126–e142.
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–17.
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(1):2–12.
Rozet F, Mandron E, Arroyo C, Andrews H, Cathelineau X, Mombet A, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy approach for genito‐urinary prolapse: experience with 363 cases. Eur Urol. 2005;47:230–236.
Costantini E, Brubaker L, Cervigni M, Matthews CA, O'Reilly BA, Rizk D, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence‐based review and recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:60–65.
Chapple CR, Cruz F, Deffieux X, Milani AL, Arlandis S, Artibani W, 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;72:424–431.
Birch C, Fynes MM. The role of synthetic and biological prostheses in reconstructive pelvic floor surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14:527–535.
Winters JC, Fitzgerald MP, Barber MD. The use of synthetic mesh in female pelvic reconstructive surgery. BJU Int. 2006;98:70–76; discussion 7.
Askew AL, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Truong T, Siddiqui NY, Bradley MS. Does mesh weight affect time to failure after robotic‐assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26:536–540.
Matthews CA, Myers EM, Henley BR, Kenton K, Weaver E, Wu JM, et al. Long‐term mesh exposure after minimally invasive total hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34:291–296.
Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196:159–165.
Bataller E, Ros C, Anglès S, Gallego M, Espuña‐Pons M, Carmona F. Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:545–555.
García‐Segui A, Lorenzo Soriano L, Costa‐Martínez MA, Amorós Torres A, Gilabert A, Oltra MF. The use of one‐piece U‐shaped mesh and barbed sutures in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Actas Urol Esp. 2020;44:49–55.
Balsamo R, Illiano E, Zucchi A, Natale F, Carbone A, Sio M, et al. Sacrocolpopexy with polyvinylidene fluoride mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: mid term comparative outcomes with polypropylene mesh. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;220:74–78.
Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1752–1758.
Hsiao KC, Latchamsetty K, Govier FE, Kozlowski P, Kobashi KC. Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. J Endourol. 2007;21:926–930.
Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:1005–1013.
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:5–12.
Vandendriessche D, Sussfeld J, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Behal H, Cosson M. Complications and reoperations after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a mean follow‐up of 4 years. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:231–239.
Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Rommens H, Spelzini F, Vandenbroucke V, et al. Medium‐term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1459–1467.
Culligan PJ, Murphy M, Blackwell L, Hammons G, Graham C, Heit MH. Long‐term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1473–1480. discussion 81‐2.
Horosz E, Pomian A, Zwierzchowska A, Majkusiak W, Tomasik P, Barcz E. Does previous pelvic organ prolapse surgery influence the effectiveness of the sub‐urethral sling procedure? J Clin Med. 2020;9:653.
Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine‐preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1803–1813.
