Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy for the Management of Uterovaginal Prolapse: a Pilot, Single-Center Experience from Saudi Arabia
Open accessAbstract
Background: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is an emerging uterine-preserving strategy for management of uterovaginal prolapse (UVP). The literature on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of UVP is very scarce from Saudi Arabia. This research examined the feasibility, clinical utility, and safety of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in a Saudi setting. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted, including all patients who met the inclusion criteria. The laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy technique was adapted with modifications from the “Oxford hysteropexy”. The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as anatomical success in all vaginal compartments (UVP grade 0 or 1 postoperatively). The secondary endpoint was the mean change in point C. Descriptive data were summarized with numbers and percentages, while numerical data used means ± standard deviations. Fisher’s exact and Student’s t tests were used for univariate analyses. Significant surgical outcome predictors were identified via logistic regression, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: Overall, 21 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent indication for laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was UVP without anterior or posterior wall prolapse (n = 15, 71.4%), whereas the most frequent grade of UVP was grade III (n = 13, 61.9%). One patient (4.8%) required switch to laparotomy due to severe adhesions. No perioperative complications were recorded. The mean change in point C and hospital stay were 5.8 ± 2.1 (range: 0– 8) and 1.4 ± 0.6 days (range: 1– 3), respectively. Surgical success was achieved in 18 patients (85.7%). Only three patients experienced recurrences (one, two, and six months postoperatively). The mean change in point C was significantly higher in successful cases contrasted with the failed cases (6.5 versus 1.3). Conclusion: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of uterovaginal prolapse revealed technical feasibility, safety, and beneficial utility of the procedure. Further large-sized and multicentric investigations are important to gather additional pertinent information on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy. Keywords: pelvic organ prolapse, uterovaginal prolapse, sacrohysteropexy, surgical failure, success rate
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These findings contrast with previous observational studies that reported higher mesh exposure rates when total hysterectomy or vaginal mesh procedures were included.
“These findings contrast with previous observational studies that reported higher mesh exposure rates when total hysterectomy or vaginal mesh procedures were included [15–24, 29].”
From Perioperative complications of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrocolpopexy with subtotal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (2026) · cites this paper as [23]
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports one postoperative vaginal mesh exposure in a prior study. It does not report higher mesh-exposure rates in studies including total hysterectomy or vaginal mesh procedures, or make the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [18]Tahir S, Yasmin N, Kanwal S, Aleem M. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse. Annals Punjab Medi Col. 2012; 6(1): 75– 80.
- Authors
- Hafedh, B., Idris, S., Nadreen, F., Banasser, A., Iskandarani, R., & Baradwan, S.
- Affiliations
- King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Baradwan, Saeed
- ORCID
- Baradwan, Saeed
- Venue
- International Journal of Women's Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-09
- Volume
- Volume 16
- Pages
- 1483-1491
- ISSN
- 1179-1411 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11401523
- OpenAlex
- W4402425835
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Women s Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
- Keywords
- uterovaginal prolapse, uterine preservation, pelvic organ prolapse, surgical outcomes, recurrence, feasibility and safety, Saudi Arabia, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, adhesion, surgical technique modification, predictors of surgical success, pelvic floor dysfunction, minimally invasive surgery
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
