Analysis of the Clinical Value of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy to Support the Posterior Compartment in Women with Multicompartment Prolapse Including Rectocele

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is regarded as the gold standard treatment for apical or multicompartment prolapse, predominantly with anterior compartment descent. However, the optimal surgical approach for concurrent rectocele is still debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nerve-sparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in managing multicompartment prolapse with concurrent rectocele (≥stage II), analyzing the anatomical outcomes, the necessity for concomitant or subsequent posterior repair, and the impact on bowel function in women undergoing surgery. <b>Methods</b>: Data from all women who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without posterior repair between 01/2017 and 07/2022 for symptomatic multicompartment prolapse, including apical and posterior compartment descent ≥ stage II, were retrospectively evaluated. All women underwent a standardized urogynecological examination, including assessment of genital prolapse using the POP-Q quantification system, and completed the German-validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire before and after surgery (6-12 weeks). Preoperative anatomic support and bowel symptoms were compared with postoperative values. <b>Results</b>: In total, 112 women met the criteria for surgical correction. The majority (87%) had stage II posterior descent, with only 10% undergoing concurrent posterior repair during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001) objective improvement was seen for all compartments post- compared with preoperatively (Ba: 0 (-1/2) vs. -3 (-3/-2), C: -1 (-2/0) vs. -8 (-12/-7), Bp: 0 (-1/0) vs. -3 (-2/-2); (median (25%/75% quartiles)). Subsequent surgery for persistent rectocele and/or stool outlet symptoms was required in 4% of cases. Most bowel-specific questions in the German-validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire showed significant improvement (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions</b>: Nerve-sparing sacrocolpopexy alone appears to be a suitable surgical approach to correct multicompartment prolapse, including a rectocele ≥ stage II, and results in a reduction of objective signs and symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2024-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175051
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.94
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Analysis of the Clinical Value of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy to Support the Posterior Compartment in Women with Multicompartment Prolapse Including Rectocele

Corina Christmann‐Schmid, Andreas Martin Studer, Simone Aichner, Christine Brambs et al.
2 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
0.94
article

Analysis of the Clinical Value of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy to Support the Posterior Compartment in Women with Multicompartment Prolapse Including Rectocele

Corina Christmann‐Schmid, Andreas Martin Studer, Simone Aichner, Christine Brambs, Jörg Krebs, Janine Frey
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is regarded as the gold standard treatment for apical or multicompartment prolapse, predominantly with anterior compartment descent. However, the optimal surgical approach for concurrent rectocele is still debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nerve-sparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in managing multicompartment prolapse with concurrent rectocele (≥stage II), analyzing the anatomical outcomes, the necessity for concomitant or subsequent posterior repair, and the impact on bowel function in women undergoing surgery. <b>Methods</b>: Data from all women who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without posterior repair between 01/2017 and 07/2022 for symptomatic multicompartment prolapse, including apical and posterior compartment descent ≥ stage II, were retrospectively evaluated. All women underwent a standardized urogynecological examination, including assessment of genital prolapse using the POP-Q quantification system, and completed the German-validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire before and after surgery (6-12 weeks). Preoperative anatomic support and bowel symptoms were compared with postoperative values. <b>Results</b>: In total, 112 women met the criteria for surgical correction. The majority (87%) had stage II posterior descent, with only 10% undergoing concurrent posterior repair during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001) objective improvement was seen for all compartments post- compared with preoperatively (Ba: 0 (-1/2) vs. -3 (-3/-2), C: -1 (-2/0) vs. -8 (-12/-7), Bp: 0 (-1/0) vs. -3 (-2/-2); (median (25%/75% quartiles)). Subsequent surgery for persistent rectocele and/or stool outlet symptoms was required in 4% of cases. Most bowel-specific questions in the German-validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire showed significant improvement (<i>p</i> < 0.001). <b>Conclusions</b>: Nerve-sparing sacrocolpopexy alone appears to be a suitable surgical approach to correct multicompartment prolapse, including a rectocele ≥ stage II, and results in a reduction of objective signs and symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 13(17)
Swiss Paraplegic Research (CH)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 23%
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
0.94
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.