Uterus-preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a patient-centred outcome report and video of a continuous series of 245 patients
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis Changes in the psychological value of reproductive organs have led to a growing interest in uterine-preserving surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Sacral hysteropexy is considered as gold standard, although dissection of the promontory may be challenging. We show a video and present a report on a series of patients operated by laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh as an alternative.Methods Clinical evaluation was performed using the simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q). Primary outcomes were subjective and objective cure; secondary outcomes were rates for reoperation and complications. We assessed patient's satisfaction in a telephone interview using a visual analogue scale and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement Scale (PGI-I) scale.Results Two hundred and fifty-four patients were treated between 2004 and 2011 with a median follow-up of 7.5 years. At 1 year 82.7 % of patients were asymptomatic, and anatomic success rates were 88.2 % for the anterior, 86.1 % for the apical and 80.8 % for the posterior compartment; 1.2 % had mesh exposure, and the reoperation rate was 7.4 %. More than 80 % of patients were highly satisfied with the outcome.Conclusions Uterine-preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh is a safe technique with promising results and low complication rates. It may be an alternative to sacral hysteropexy for high-morbidity patients.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 6 · Cited by 59
- Authors
- Veit-Rubin, N., Dubuisson, J.-B., Lange, S., Eperon, I., & Dubuisson, J.
- Affiliations
- University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
- ORCID
- Lange, Sören
- Venue
- International Urogynecology Journal
- Published
- 2015-10-17
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 491-493
- ISSN
- 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-3023
- OpenAlex
- W1773537240
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 3.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion)
- Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
- Keywords
- uterine-preserving surgery, pelvic organ prolapse, laparoscopic lateral suspension, mesh, POP-Q, patient satisfaction, reoperation rate, postoperative complications, mesh exposure
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Laparoscopy, Prospective Studies, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Surgical Mesh, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Organ Sparing Treatments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review