Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay management for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study

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 follow-up 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 cut-off 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.

Keywords: ASA-PS; Feasibility; Outcomes; POP; Repair.