A comparative study of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and total vaginal mesh procedure using lightweight polypropylene meshes for prolapse repair

ObjectiveUse of vaginal meshes for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) remains controversial. A trend toward abdominal approaches and the development of new meshes has been noted. We compared the 1-year results of two different approaches using new lightweight meshes.Materials and methodsSixty-nine (95.8%) of 72 women with POP Stage ≥ 2, who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) (n = 39) or a total vaginal mesh (TVM) procedure (n = 30) using lightweight polypropylene meshes, were studied. Baseline and follow-up assessments included a pelvic examination and a composite condition-specific questionnaire. A detailed comparison of 1-year outcomes was made. Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods.ResultsCompared to the TVM group, the LSC group was characterized by a younger age (53.7 years vs. 64.1 years, p < 0.001) and a longer operating time (264 minutes vs. 177.6 minutes, p < 0.001). Objective anatomic success (POP Stage ≤ 1) rates were similar between groups after statistical adjustment, i.e., 84.6% (33/39) and 86.7% (26/30) after LSC and TVM (p = 0.94), respectively. However, the dominant recurrence sites were different with anterior (n = 6) most frequent after LSC and apical (n = 4) most frequent after TVM. Reoperations were needed for the four (13.3%) apical recurrences in the TVM group. No serious complications were noted. We found “cystocele as the dominant prolapse” (p = 0.016; odds ratio = 6.94) and “suspension of prolapsed (POP Stage ≥ 2) uterus” (p = 0.025; odds ratio = 7.00) significantly affected recurrence after LSC and TVM, respectively.ConclusionPOP repair by LSC or TVM using the new lightweight polypropylene meshes seems to be safe and has comparable outcomes, but limitations may vary.