Laparoscopic posterior vaginal plication plus sacral colpopexy for severe posterior vaginal prolapse: A randomized clinical trial. Issue 1 (22nd September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Morciano, Andrea; Ercoli, Alfredo; Caliandro, Dario; Campagna, Giuseppe; Panico, Giovanni; Giaquinto, Alessia; Zullo, Marzio Angelo; Tinelli, Andrea; Scambia, Giovanni; Marzo, Giuseppe; Cervigni, Mauro
• Is Part Of: Neurourology and urodynamics. Volume 42:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 98
• Page End: 105
• Publication Date: 2022-09-22
• Subjects: laparoscopy -- pelvic organ prolapse -- posterior plication -- posterior vaginal prolapse -- sacral colpopexy; Urinary organs -- Periodicals; Urodynamics -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1002/nau.25052
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0733-2467

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: A randomized clinical trial proposing a new laparoscopic prosthetic and fascial approach to severe posterior vaginal prolapse. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the objective and subjective outcomes of our laparoscopic posterior plication (LPP) combined to "two‐mesh" sacral colpopexy (laparoscopic sacral colpopexy [LSC]) in severe posterior vaginal prolapse, with a 1‐year follow‐up. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the safety of this surgical procedure. Methods: This is single‐center prospective randomized double‐blinded clinical trial. A total of 130 consecutive patients with anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) (POP‐Q stage ≥II) and severe posterior vaginal prolapse (posterior POP‐Q stage ≥III) were prospectively assessed for inclusion into the study from November 2018 to January 2020. Patients underwent "two‐meshes" LSC and were randomized in Group A (LSC plus LPP) and Group A (LSC alone ). Of the 130 included subjects, 8 were excluded, not meeting inclusion criteria. Cure rate was evaluated objectively, using POP‐Q study, and subjectively using PGI‐I, POPDI‐6, and FSDS questionnaires. Complications were assessed intra‐, peri‐, and postoperatively. Twelve‐month follow‐ups were analyzed for the study. Results: We found in LSC plus LPP Group a significant improvement of Ap and genital hiatus POP‐Q points. Our subjective study showed, at 12 months, a statistical difference in PGI‐I successful outcomes rate in favor of LPP. Also the FSDS resulted significantly much more improved in Group A. We observed no statistical differences in terms of postoperative complications. Conclusions: Our LPP approach to LSC could be considered an effective and safe technique to POP patients with severe posterior prolapse.