Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 19, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
Comparison of laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy for apical prolapse: an exploratory
Kavita Khoiwal1, Kanhu Charan Dash1, Amrita Gaurav1
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, India
Objective:
To compare laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy in women with symptomatic apical prolapse.
Material And Methods:
An interim analysis of an exploratory randomized controlled trial with the primary objective of comparing mesh fixation time and secondary objectives were to compare total operating time, blood loss, and intra-operative and post-operative complications. Additionally, patients completed the Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) questionnaires before surgery and during six months follow-up visit to evaluate the overall improvement in quality of life and sexual function. Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score was calculated on the 7-10th day post-operatively and then at six months to assess the level of improvement.
Results:
The study included 30 patients; 15 underwent laparoscopic sacropexy, and 15 underwent laparoscopic pectopexy. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean duration of mesh fixation was significantly less with laparoscopic pectopexy (45.00±11.34 minutes) than laparoscopic sacropexy (54.67±9.35 minutes) (p=0.019). The total operating time and blood loss tended to be less in the pectopexy group, but not significantly so. Only one patient in the pectopexy group had a bladder injury. No patient in either group had any post-operative complications. One case in each group had a relapse of apical prolapse. All the domains of PISQ-12, P-QOL, and PGI-I scores improved significantly after both procedures.
Conclusion:
Laparoscopic pectopexy is a safe, feasible, and comfortable alternative procedure to the standard sacropexy for apical prolapse. We noted significantly less mesh fixation time and less operating time, while blood loss tended to be less with laparoscopic pectopexy than with laparoscopic sacropexy. Post-operative parameters were comparable between techniques. Both corrective techniques for prolapse improved the PGI-I, P-QOL, and PISQ-12 scores.
