A.V. MALUSHKO¹, O.V. SUVORINA¹, I.D. SHCHEDRINA¹, I.B. FATKULLINA², E.M. ZULKARNEEVA², A.M. ZIGANSHIN², S.M. ALEKSEEV¹, N.V. NAZARIKOVA¹, P.P. IVANOVA³, V.R. SILAKOVA⁴

 ¹Leningrad Regional Clinical Hospital, Saint Petersburg

²Republican Clinical Perinatal Center of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Ufa

³Saint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University, Saint Petersburg

⁴Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow

Contact details:

Malushko A.V, Head of the Gynecology Department

Address: 45 Lunacharskogo St., building 2, 194291 Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, tel.: 8-800-301-47-47, e-mail: a-malushko@mail.ru

 Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition that decreases quality of life in women. According to statistics, the prevalence of genital prolapse reaches 49.4%, increasing annually due to longer life expectancies and changing lifestyles.

The purpose — to evaluate the effectiveness of various surgical techniques for pelvic organ prolapse correction based on literature data.

Material and methods. A literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and eLibrary.ru using the keywords «pelvic organ prolapse», «surgical treatment», «mesh endoprostheses», «vNOTES», «sacrocervicopexy», «vaginal hysterectomy», «pectopexy», and «sacrospinal fixation» from 2020 to 2025.

The article provides an overview of modern methods for POP correction and assesses the advantages and disadvantages of various surgical techniques, with a focus on minimally invasive procedures, including those using mesh implants. When correcting POP, special attention should be paid to a personalized approach to selecting the optimal treatment method for each patient.

Key words: pelvic organ prolapse, surgical treatment, mesh endoprostheses, vNOTES, sacrocervicopexy, vaginal hysterectomy, pectopexy, sacrospinal fixation

 REFERENCES

1. Boldyreva Yu.A., Tskhay V.B., Polstyanoy A.M. et al. Modern methods of surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Astrakhanskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal, 2023, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 8–21 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.29039/1992-6499-2023-3-8-21
2. Ishchenko A.I., Asambayeva A., Ishchenko A.A. et al. Remote results of surgical treatment of various forms of pelvic organ prolapse. Arkhiv akusherstva i ginekologii im. V.F. Snegireva, 2023, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 287–297 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17816/2313-8726-2023-10-4-287-297
3. Ershov A.G., Selikhova M.S., Yershov G.V., Karnushin T.E. The Impact of Pelvic Organ Prolapse on the Quality of Life of Women of Reproductive Age. Mezhdunarodnyy nauchno-issledovatel’skiy zhurnal, 2023, no. 7 (133) (in Russ.). DOI:10.23670/IRJ.2023.133.79
4. Raju R., Linder B.J. Evaluation and management of pelvic organ prolapse. Mayo Clin. Proceed, 2021, vol. 96 (12), pp. 3122–3129. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.09.005
5. Paul K., Darzi S., Werkmeister J.A., Gargett C.E., Mukherjee S. Emerging nano/micro-structured degradable polymeric Meshes for pelvic floor reconstruction. Nanomaterials, 2020, vol. 10 (6), p. 1120. DOI: 10.3390/nano10061120
6. Gluck O., Rusavy Z., Grinstein E., Abdelkhalek Y., Deval B. Effect of age on complications rate and surgical outcomes in women undergoing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and sacrocolpopexy. J. Min. Inv. Gynecol, 2022, vol. 29 (6), pp. 753–758. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2022.01.017
7. van Oudheusden A.M.J., Eissing J., Terink I.M., Vink M.D.H., van Kuijk S.M.J., Bongers M.Y., Coolen A.W.M. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: long-term followup of a randomized controlled trial. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2023, vol. 34 (1), pp. 93–104. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05350-y
8. Illiano E., Giannitsas K., Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2020, vol. 31 (10), pp. 2069–2074. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1
9. Alekseyev S.M., Malushko A.V., Komlichenko E.V. et al. Patent no. 2855619 C1 Rossiyskaya Federatsiya, MPK A61B 17/42. Sposob korrektsii apikal’nogo prolapsa tazovykh organov vlagalishchnym dostupom u patsiyentok reproduktivnogo vozrasta s ispol’zovaniyem Mesh-less tekhnologiy: zayavl. 24.07.2025; opubl. 02.02.2026 [Patent No. 2855619 C1 Russian Federation, IPC A61B 17/42. A method for correcting apical pelvic organ prolapse through the vagina in patients of reproductive age using mesh-less technologies: declared 24.07.2025; published 02.02.2026].
10. Aleksandrov A., Smith A.V., Rabischong B., Botchorishvili R. Mesh-less laparoscopic treatment of apical prolapse. Facts Views Vision, 2021, vol. 13 (2), pp. 179–181. DOI: 10.52054/FVVO.13.2.013
11. Stabile G., Romano F., Topouzova G.A., Mangino F.P., Di Lorenzo G., Laganà A.S. et al. Spondylodiscitis after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: description of a rare complication and systematic review of the literature. Front. Surg, 2021, vol. 8, p. 741311. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.741311
12. Dällenbach P., Alec M., Boulvain M., Shabanov S. Outcomes of robotically assisted laparoscopic lateral suspension (RALLS) with mesh for anterior and apical prolapse. J. Robotic Sur, 2022, vol. 16 (2), pp. 287–294. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01234-3
13. Chill H.H., Gutman-Ido E., Navon I., Reuveni-Salzman A., Haj-Yahya R., Shveiky D. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension versus vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system: clinical outcome and patient satisfaction. Int. Urogynecol. J., 2021, vol. 32 (6), pp. 1513–1518. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04563-3
14. Alfahmy A., Mahran A., Conroy B., Brewka R.R., Ibrahim M., Sheyn D. et al. Abdominal and vaginal pelvic support with concomitant hysterectomy for uterovaginal pelvic prolapse: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2021, vol. 32 (8), pp. 2021–2031. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04861-4
15. Vypadeniye zhenskikh polovykh organov: klinicheskiye rekomendatsii. Ministerstvo zdravookhraneniya Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Prolapse of female genital organs: clinical guidelines. Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, 2024–2027.
16. Karslı A., Karslı O., Kale A. Laparoscopic pectopexy: an effective procedure for pelvic organ prolapse with an evident improvement on quality of life. Prague Med. Rep, 2021, vol. 122 (1), pp. 25–33. DOI: 10.14712/23362936.2021.3
17. Alekseyev S.M., Malushko A.V., Komlichenko E.V. et al. Patent no. 2835513 C1 Rossiyskaya Federatsiya, MPK A61B 17/42, A61B 1/303, A61B 10/04. Sposob maloinvazivnoy vlagalishchnoy gister·ektomii s odnomomentnoy korrektsiyey prolapsa tazovykh organov: zayavl. 31.07.2024; opubl. 26.02.2025 [Patent No. 2835513 C1 Russian Federation, IPC A61B 17/42, A61B 1/303, A61B 10/04. Method for minimally invasive vaginal hysterectomy with simultaneous correction of pelvic organ prolapse: declared 31.07.2024; published 26.02.2025].
18. Bakir M.S., Bagli I., Cavus Y., Tahaoglu A.E. Laparoscopic pectopexy and paravaginal repair after failed recurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Gynecol. Min. Inv. Ther., 2020, vol. 9 (1), pp. 42–44. DOI: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_101_18
19. Chuang F.C., Chou Y.M., Wu L.Y., Yang T.H., Chen W.H., Huang K.H. Laparoscopic pectopexy: the learning curve and comparison with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2022, vol. 33 (7), pp. 1949–1956. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04934-4
20. Pirtea L., Balint O., Secoșan C., Grigoraș D., Ilina R. Laparoscopic pectopexy with burch colposuspension for pelvic prolapse associated with stress urinary incontinence. J. Min. Inv. Gynecol, 2020, vol. 27 (5), pp. 1023–1024. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.10.022
21. Mattsson N.K., Karjalainen P.K., Tolppanen A.M. et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and quality of life-a nationwide cohort study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol, 2020, vol. 222 (6), pp. 588e1–588e10.
22. Selikhova M.S., Skvortsov V.V., Yershov G.V. et al. The role of undifferentiated connective tissue dysplasias in the development of pelvic organ prolapse. Lechashchiy vrach, 2021, no. 12, pp. 22–25 (in Russ.).
23. Berg P.A., Yashchuk A.G., Musin I.I. et al. Pelvic organ prolapse: risk factors and prevention options. Meditsinskiy vestnik Bashkortostana, 2022, vol. 17, no. 1 (97), pp. 83–88 (in Russ.).
24. Dietz H.P., Chavez-Coloma L., Friedman T. et al. Pelvic organ prolapse in nulliparae. Australian New Zealand J. Obstet. Gynaecol, 2022, vol. 62 (3), pp. 420–425.
25. Shchukina A.S., Klyushnikov I.D., Popov A.A., Fedorov A.A. Comparative Evaluation of Surgical Methods for Treating Apical Prolapse Using Mesh Prostheses. Prakticheskaya meditsina, 2025, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 111–117 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32000/2072-1757-2025-5-111-117
26. Orazov M.R., Radzinskiy V.E., Minnullina F.F. Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Prakticheskaya meditsina, 2024, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 18–23 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32000/2072-1757-2024-3-18-23
27. Hadizadeh-Talasaz Z., Khadivzadeh T., Mohajeri T., Sadeghi M. Worldwide prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran J. Public. Health, 2024, vol. 53 (3), pp. 524–538. DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v53i3.15134
28. Shkarupa D.D., Kubin N.D., Popov E.N., Shapovalova Ye.A., Zaytseva A.O. Unilateral apical sling — a new look at sacrospinal fixation. Zhurnal akusherstva i zhenskikh bolezney, 2019, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 37–46 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17816/JOWD68137-46
29. Gvozdev M.Yu., Soluyanov M.Yu., Nimayev V.V. Vaginal approach in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Urologiya, 2020, no. 4, pp. 139–143 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18565/urology.2020.4.139-143
30. Bastani P., Ebrahimpour M., Mallah F. et al. Comparison of the functional and anatomical outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy and vaginal sacrospinous ligament suspension for the treatment of apical prolapse. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Cancer Res, 2021, vol. 7 (2), pp. 105–113. DOI: 10.30699/jogcr.7.2.105
31. Raju R., Linder B.J. Evaluation and management of pelvic organ prolapse. Mayo Clin. Proc, 2021, vol. 96 (12), pp. 3122–3129. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.09.005
32. Robinson M.O., Linder B.J. Evaluation and treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Minerva Med, 2023, vol. 114 (4), pp. 516–528. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4806.22.08396-3
33. Lasri S., Alshamsi H., Campeau L. Synthetic meshes in pelvic organ prolapse: a narrative review. Soc. Int. Urol. J, 2025, vol. 6 (1), p. 2. DOI: 10.3390/siuj6010002
34. Musin I.I., Naftulovich R.A., Absalyamova D.F. et al. The choice of the method of reconstructive surgery for genital prolapse taking into account additional risk factors. Prakticheskaya meditsina, 2020, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 46–50 (in Russ.).
35. Dzhakupov D.V., Kudaybergenov T.K., Barmanasheva Z.E., Karabekov N.B. Laparoscopic pectopexy. Experience of IRM. Reproduktivnaya meditsina, 2020, no. 3 (44), pp. 52–56 (in Russ.).
36. Vishnevskaya A.S., Boldyreva Yu.A., Yegiazaryan G.A. Sravnitel’nyy analiz effektivnosti khirurgicheskikh metodov korrektsii prolapsa tazovykh organov: sakropeksii, pektopeksii [Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of surgical methods for correcting pelvic organ prolapse: sacropexy, pectopexy]. Problemy meditsiny i biologii. Nauchn·yye literaturn·yye obzory i stat’i: materialy Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii molodykh uchenykh i studentov, Kemerovo, 20–21 aprelya 2023 g. Kemerovo: FGBOU VO «Kemerovskiy gosudarstvennyy meditsinskiy universitet» MZ RF, 2023. Pp. 35–37.
37. Tyan A.G., Dobrokhotova Yu.E., Lapina I.A. et al. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic techniques for correcting apical genital prolapse. Prakticheskaya meditsina, 2025, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 146–151 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.32000/2072-1757-2025-2-146-151.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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 prolapseshort term results. Sci. Rep, 2023, vol. 13 (1), p. 18519.
41. Dobrokhotova Yu.E., Taranov V.V., Lapina I.A., Tyan A.G. Laparoscopic correction of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a modern view of the problem. Ginekologiya, 2023, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 88–91 (in Russ.).
42. Alekseyeva M.Yu., Shpikina A.D., Snurnitsyna O.V. et al. Sexual function in women after surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Voprosy urologii i andrologii, 2025, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 38–47 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.20953/2307-6631-2025-2-38-47