Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 28, 2026
Laparoscopic Non-Mesh Cerclage Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Published on: September 13, 2022
Evidence to justify retention of transvaginal mesh: comparison between laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and transvaginal
Valérie To1, Pattaya Hengrasmee2,3, Alan Lam2
1Centre for Advanced Reproductive Endosurgery (C.A.R.E.), Suite 408, 69 Christie Street, Sydney, NSW, 2065, Australia. Valerie.to@mail.mcgill.ca.
Introduction And Hypothesis:
To determine if laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) offers better apical support with a lower exposure rate than transvaginal mesh surgery with Elevate™.
Methods:
This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients with apical prolapse (POP-Q point C ≥ -1) who underwent Elevate™ mesh repair (n = 146) with patients who underwent laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (n = 267).
Results:
The sacral colpopexy group had a mean age of 59 years and a BMI of 25.7. Patients in the Elevate™ group were older, with a mean age of 63 and a BMI of 26.3. Most of the patients of both groups presented with pelvic organ prolapse stage III (LSC 73.8% and Elevate™ 87.0%) and their mean POP-Q point C were not significantly different (LSC 1.4 vs Elevate™ 1.2 cm). Operative time was longer in the LSC group (113 vs 91 min, p < 0.001), but estimated blood loss was lower (75 cm3 vs 137 cm3, p < 0.001). No difference in mesh exposure rate could be found between the two groups at one year (Elevate™ 0.7% vs LSC 2.6%, OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.10, p = 0.21). One-year objective cure rate, defined as no descent beyond the hymen, was 97.0% in the LSC group and 96.6% in the Elevate™ group (p = .81). The overall recurrence (objective, subjective recurrence or reoperation) was also not different between the groups (LSC 4.5% vs Elevate 4.8%, p = 0.89).
Conclusion:
Transvaginal Elevate™ mesh delivers comparable apical support with a low exposure rate similar to that of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.
