Background Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH + LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH + LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. Methods A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH + LSC or TLH + LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. Results In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH + LSC n = 208 and TLH + LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p = 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006). Conclusion LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.

No abstract

Study objectives: The primary aim of this study was to assess the clinical feasibility of a policy where laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is the default procedure for the management of a significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (a-POP). As a secondary aim, we wanted to evaluate LSC outcomes in relation to women's preoperative assessment of their surgical fitness using the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) categorization. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: A university affiliated urogynecology center. Methods: All women with symptomatic a-POP (C !-1) who attended the urogynecology clinic between the 1 st of January and the 31 st of December 2016 and had their surgery by the 31 st of May 2017 were included in the study. In our unit, routine follow-up appointments are arranged at 3 and 12 months post LSC. Interventions: Perioperative and mesh-related complications were assessed based on the Dindo-Clavien and IUGA/ICS classifications respectively. The preoperative outcome measures included Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and ASA-PS score. At followup women were asked to complete a PFDI, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), had their POP-Q staging and ultrasonographic assessment of mesh position and placement. The above measures are routinely collected as part of our standard practice. A preoperative ASA-PS score of <3 was used as a cutoff to dichotomies participants into low and high risk. Main results: A total of 220 women attended our center during the study period because of POP. Of these, 146 women were diagnosed with a significant a-POP and 142 (97.2 %) women opted for a surgical repair. Of the 142 women, 128 (90.1 %) were deemed suitable for a type of LSC and 121 had their surgery before the 31 st of May 2017. There were no statistically significant differences in any of our collected perioperative, clinical, patient reported or ultrasonographic outcome measures when comparing women with ASA-PS scores of <3 or !3. Conclusion: In a specialized urogynecology healthcare setting, it is feasible and safe to rely on LSC as the mainstay surgical procedure for the repair of a significant a-POP. However, it is imperative to ensure that technical skills and equipment requirements are fulfilled and maintained.

Background The aim of this study was to explore the personal views of female gynecologists regarding the management of POP with a particular focus on the issue of uterine sparing surgery. Methods A questionnaire based survey of practicing female gynecologists in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia. Results A total of 140 female gynecologists from 81 units responded to our questionnaire. The majority of respondents stated they would rely on a urogynecologist to aid them with their choice of POP management options. The most preferred options for POP management were sacrocolpopexy and physiotherapy. Almost 2/3 of respondents opted for a hysterectomy together with POP surgery, if they were menopausal, even if the anatomical outcome was similar to uterine sparing POP surgery. Moreover, 81.4% of respondents, who initially opted for a uterine sparing procedure, changed their mind if the anatomical success of POP surgery with concomitant hysterectomy was superior. Discussing uterine cancer risk in relation to other organs had a less significant impact on their choices. Conclusions The majority of female gynecologists in our study opted for hysterectomy if they were postmenopausal at the time of POP surgery. However, variation in information provision had an impact on their choice.

Background: Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH+LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH+LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH+LSC or TLH+LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. Results. In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH+LSC n = 208 and TLH+LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p= 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006).Conclusion. LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.