Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

AIM

To compare total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh (TVM) and laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

Six hundred and seventy patients with POP stage 3 and 4 underwent LSC (n = 350) or TVM (n = 320) at the West China Second Hospital, Sichuan University between January 2011 and December 2016. Retrospective analysis was done to compare the POP-Q value before operation and 6 months, 5 years after operation, also compare the, patient global impression of change (PGI-C), pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Patients were followed for a median 36 months. Thirty-five patients in the LSC and 37 in the TVM groups were lost to follow-up.

RESULTS

Preoperative POP value and disease course were similar (P = 0.075). The LSC group was younger (52.8 ± 6.8 vs. 63.9 ± 8.7 years, P = 0.037). Intraoperative bleeding was smaller in the LSC group (74.4 ± 33.2 vs. 150.4 ± 80.3 mL, P < 0.01), with longer operation time (130.0 ± 34.1 min vs 100.4 ± 40.4 min, P < 0.035). The patients were followed for 10-60 months (median, 36 months). Postoperative PISQ-12 (P < 0.01) was better in the LSC group. PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 were improved after operation in both groups. Objective satisfaction (94.9% vs 91.9%, P > 0.05) and recurrence rate (8.4% vs 5.1%, P = 0.064) were similar. No infection or fistula occurred after operation in both groups. The complication rate of intraoperative bladder injury and postoperative perineal pain in LSC group was lower than those in the TVM group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LSC showed no serious adverse events and led to higher postoperative satisfaction than TVM in selected patients. Nevertheless, treatment should be selected in accordance with the willingness and condition of each patient.