Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 21, 2026
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
Long-term outcomes of modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: a 3-year prospective
Shuo Liang1, Lan Zhu, Xiaochen Song
11Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, PR China 2Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & School of Basic Medicine, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, PR China.
Objective:
The aim of the study was to evaluate the anatomical and functional outcomes of modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (MLSC) for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
Methods:
From May 2009 to September 2012, a consecutive prospective observational study of 30 participants was conducted to evaluate MLSC as a treatment for symptomatic advanced POP at Peking Union Medical College Hospital. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) classification was used to determine the POP stage. Validated tools were used to evaluate symptoms (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, PFDI-20) and sexual function (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, PISQ-12). Measurements were recorded preoperatively and then at 3 months and yearly after surgery. We compared the follow-up results with the preoperative data.
Results:
All participants completed a 3-year clinical follow-up routine. The anatomical results at 3 months showed significant improvements (P < 0.05) compared with the preoperative results based on the POP-Q measurements. This improvement remained significant after 3 years (P < 0.05). The anatomical cure rate was 100% and 96.7% at 3 months and 3 years after surgery, respectively. Pelvic floor function remained significantly improved after surgery compared with preceding surgery (P < 0.05) according to the following measures: PFDI-20 (106.2 vs 36.0), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6, 47.9 vs 13.7), Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory-8 (CRADI-8, 29.2 vs 9.2), and Urinary Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6, 29.2 vs 13.2). The participants maintained a high level of sexual function (PISQ-12: 29.0 vs 35.1, P < 0.05). One case of mesh exposure (3.3%) and two cases of de novo dyspareunia (8.7%) were observed.
Conclusions:
MLSC seems to be a safe and effective procedure that achieves good long-term anatomical and functional results.
