4.3 Article

Redo laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for POP recurrence: Is it the right call?

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.06.023

Keywords

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy; Laparoscopic surgery; Pelvic organ prolapse; POP recurrence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Minimally invasive Redo LSCP appears to be a safe and effective procedure in treating recurrent and symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse. The study showed that the surgery had low recurrence rates and significant improvement in both objective and subjective outcomes.
Objectives: As Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) has proven to be the gold-standard for treating Pelvic Organ Prolapse, management of recurrence after its failure is a challenge with upcoming interest. In these patients, repeat LSCP might represent a suitable surgical choice.Study design: We present a retrospective observational study analysing safety, feasibility and outcomes of Redo LSCP. Data of 20 patients with POP recurrence who underwent previous sacrocolpopexy were recruited, and all successfully underwent a repeat LSCP.Results: Median 24-months follow-up demonstrated a statistically significant improvement of objective and subjective outcome. No intra and postoperative complications were noted. Anatomical cure rate was 95%. Subjective cure rate was 100%, with a statistically significant POP symptoms resolution and improvement of voiding and storage symptoms.We compared perioperative data and outcome of Redo patients to a population who underwent LSCP for a first-time diagnosed POP. The findings demonstrated that surgery did not differ from standard procedure in terms of intra/postoperative complications, hospital stay, blood loss, except for operative time.Conclusions: Minimally invasive Redo LSCP appears to be a safe and effective procedure in treating recurrent and symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Our series shows low recurrence rates, comparable to data from patients who underwent their primary surgery for POP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available