Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 25, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Compared with Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy
Yingying Yang1, Zhen Li1, Keyi Si2
1Clinical Research Unit (Drs. Yang and Z. Li), Shanghai Key Laboratory of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Gynecologic Oncology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Study Objective:
To evaluate the clinical benefits of laparoscopic pectopexy vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
Design:
Prospective cohort study.
Setting:
A tertiary hospital.
Patients:
We included 203 patients with POP.
Interventions:
Laparoscopic pectopexy or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
Measurements And Main Results:
Anatomic effectiveness was measured using the POP Quantification system, both before and after operation. Functional recovery effectiveness was evaluated using complications and recurrence rates within 1 year. Quality of life was assessed by the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 and Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaires at enrollment and postoperative months 3, 6, and 12. Comparisons between groups were performed using t test, chi-square test, and mixed-effects model with repeated measures. The analysis included 203 eligible patients (sacrocolpopexy, 101; pectopexy, 102). The proportion of robotic-assisted surgeries was lower in the pectopexy group than in the sacrocolpopexy group (15.7% vs 41.6%, p <.001). The average operation time of pectopexy was shorter than that of sacrocolpopexy (174.2 vs 187.7 minutes) with a mean difference of 13.5 minutes (95% confidence interval, 3.9-23.0; p = .006). Differences of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and postoperative 7-day complications between groups were not significant. Anatomic successes were obtained in both groups with similar improvement in POP Quantification scores. The rate of urinary symptoms recurrence was higher in the pectopexy group (13.7%) than in the sacrocolpopexy group (5.0%) at the 1-year follow-up (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-8.8, p = .032). The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 and Incontinence Quality of Life scores were better improved at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 for laparoscopic pectopexy than for sacrocolpopexy.
Conclusion:
Laparoscopic pectopexy revealed comparable anatomic success, shorter operation time, and better improvement in quality of life scores of prolapse, colorectal-anal, and urinary symptoms at 1-year follow-up, possibly being an alternative when sacrocolpopexy is not practicable. However, clinicians should pay more attention to the recurrence of urinary symptoms after pectopexy.
