Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

A Pilot Study on Vaginally Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for Patients With Uterovaginal Prolapse

von Pechmann, Walter S. MD; Aungst, Matthew J. MD; Gruber, Daniel D. MD; Ghodsi, Pari M. MD; Cruess, David F. PhD, CPH; Griffis, Kenneth R. MD

Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery: May/June 2011 - Volume 17 - Issue 3 - pp 115-119
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318216379d
Original Articles

Objectives: The primary objective of this pilot study was to compare the short-term anatomic outcomes and complication rates of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VALS) with those of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) in patients undergoing concurrent hysterectomy. The secondary objective was to compare operative times of the 2 different techniques.

Methods: This is a retrospective pilot study comparing VALS-a method using transvaginal mesh attachment to the vaginal apex-to conventional LS in patients undergoing concurrent hysterectomy.

Results: Forty-four women underwent VALS, and 26 women underwent LS. There was no significant difference in intraoperative complication rates (2.3% vs 3.8%, not statistically significant), postoperative complication rates (4.5% vs 0.0%, P = 0.526), mesh extrusion rates (2.3% vs 0%, not statistically significant), or postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification scores. The mean total operative time was 55 minutes shorter for the VALS group (215.2 [SD, 41.0] minutes) than the LS group (269.7 [SD, 55.6] minutes; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in short-term anatomic outcomes or complication rates between groups. Vaginally assisted LS was associated with significantly shorter operative times than conventional LS.

Vaginally assisted LS was associated with significantly shorter operative times than conventional LS.

From the *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University School of Medicine; †Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC; ‡Department of Preventative Medicine and Biometrics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD; and §Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Kaiser Permanente, Fontana, CA.

Reprints: Walter S. von Pechmann, MD, 3289 Woodburn Rd, #130, Annandale, VA 22003. E-mail: wvonpechmann@yahoo.com.

This research was presented at the 30th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urogynecological Society, September 25-27, 2009, Hollywood, Florida.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.

This project received no funding.

Copyright © 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.