A.G. TYAN², YU.E. DOBROKHOTOVA¹, I.A. LAPINA¹, V.V. TARANOV¹, T.G. CHIRVON¹, N.V. GLEBOV², O.V. KAJKOVA²

¹Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow

²MEDSI Clinical and Diagnostic Center, Moscow

Contact details:

Taranov V.V. — PhD (medicine), Assistant Lecturer at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Address: 1 Ostrovityanova St., 117997 Moscow, Russian Federation, tel.: +7-968-814-70-92, e-mail: doctortaranov@yandex.ru

The variety of options for reconstructive correction of genital prolapse demonstrates the lack of a universal treatment method and the urgency of searching for the most advanced options in order to reduce the risk of recurrence and complications.

The purpose — comparative evaluation of the results of surgical treatment of genital prolapse using laparoscopic lateral fixation and pectopexy.

Material and methods. A comparative analysis of the results of treatment of apical and antero-apical genital prolapse using laparoscopic access was performed. The first group consisted of patients who underwent lateral fixation (n = 20), the second group included patients who underwent pectopexy (n = 20).

Results. As a result of 1 year of follow-up in the postoperative period, it was noted that both techniques were associated with a significant improvement in quality of life (the sum of PFDI scores before surgery in group 1 was 122.1, after 12 months 11.5; in the second group 117.5 and 12.2, respectively). At the same time, recurrence of apical prolapse was rare (not more than 5% in both groups), whereas cystocele of stage 2 or more 12 months after surgery was more frequent among patients of the second group (5% in the first group and 15% in the second group).

Conclusion. Laparoscopic lateral fixation and pectopexy make it possible to correct the apical defect with minimal risk of recurrence. In the presence of concomitant cystocele, lateral hysteropexy is preferable.

Key words: lateral hysteropexy, laparoscopic pectopexy, genital prolapse, apical prolapse, cystocele.

REFERENCES

1. Ai F., Deng M., Mao M., Xu T., Zhu L. Depressive symptoms screening in postmenopausal women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Menopause, 2018, vol. 25, pp. 314–319.
2. Barber M.D., Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2013, vol. 24, pp. 1783–1790.
3. Ramage K., Ducey A., Scime N.V., Knox E., Brennand E.A. Factors affecting women’s decision between uterine-preserving versus hysterectomy-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Womens Health (London), 2023, vol. 19. 17455057231181015.
4. van IJsselmuiden M.N., Detollenaere R.J., Gerritse M.B.E., Kluivers K.B., Bongers M.Y., van Eijndhoven H.W.F. Dutch women’s attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol, 2018, vol. 220, pp. 79–83.
5. Porcari I., Zorzato P.C., Bosco M. et al. Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet, 2024, vol. 166, pp. 173–189.
6. Brennand E.A., Scime N.V., Huang B., Edwards A.D., Kim-Fine S., Hall J. et al.; Calgary Women’s Pelvic Health Research Group. Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective cohort study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol, 2024, S0002-9378(24)01079-2.
7. Wang X.X., Xu Y., Song Y.F., Lin C.Q., Jiang X.X. Laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for severe anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse: an observational cohort study for safety and efficacy at 2-year follow-up. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet, 2024, vol. 310 (6), pp. 3259–3265.
8. Baki Erin K., Taştan A.Ş., Katırcı Y., Özdemir A.Z., Güven D., Önem K. et al. Comparison of 2-year follow-up outcomes of laparoscopic lateral suspension and sacrospinous fixation in apical compartment prolapse: an observational study. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet, 2023, vol. 307, pp. 1859–1865.
9. Campagna G., Vacca L., Panico G., Caramazza D., Lombisani A., Scambia G. et al. Laparoscopic lateral suspension for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic literature review. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol, 2021, vol. 264, pp. 318–329.
10. Bıyık I., Gezer S., Elci Atılgan A., Uzun A., Sarı T. Evaluation of the effectiveness of laparoscopic pectopexy in advanced stage apical prolapse. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol, 2024, vol. 303, pp. 132–136.
11. Noe G.K., Alkatout I., Schiermeier S., Soltecz S., Anapolski M. Laparoscopic anterior and posterior native tissue repair: a new pelvic floor approach. Minim. Invasive. Ther. Allied Technol, 2019, vol. 28 (4), pp. 241–246.
12. Peng J., Li S., Wang L., Yang L., Nai M., Xu Q. et al. Comparison of efficacy between laparoscopic pectopexy and laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension in the treatment of apical prolapse-short term results. Sci. Rep, 2023, vol. 13 (1), p. 18519.
13. Baines G., Price N., Jefferis H., Cartwright R., Jackson S.R. Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2019, vol. 30 (9), pp. 1475–1481.
14. Vandendriessche D., Sussfeld J., Giraudet G., Lucot J.P., Behal H., Cosson M. Complications and reoperations after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a mean follow-up of 4 years. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2017, vol. 28 (2), pp. 231–239.
15. Dobrokhotova Yu.E., Taranov V.V., Lapina I.A., Tyan A.G. Laparoscopic correction of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a modern look at the problem. Ginekologiya, 2023, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 88–91 (in Russ.).
16. Kozlova A.A., Mel’nik P.S., Lologaeva M.S., Aryutin D.G., Toktar L.D. Comparative analysis of technologies for laparoscopic correction of apical prolapse. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya: Novosti. Mneniya. Obucheniya, 2023, vol. 3, no. 41, pp. 96–104 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.33029/2303-9698-2023-11-3-96-104