Laparoscopic excision and re-attachment of sacrocolpopexy mesh

Introduction and hypothesis Two cases are described and surgical techniques for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy are demonstrated at an academic affiliated hospital in patients with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Method...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International Urogynecology Journal 2021-12, Vol.32 (12), p.3301-3303
Hauptverfasser: Malekzadeh, Maral, Ramirez-Caban, Laura, Hurtado, Eric
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction and hypothesis Two cases are described and surgical techniques for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy are demonstrated at an academic affiliated hospital in patients with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Methods A laparoscopic approach was taken for surgical intervention, with excision of prior detached vaginal mesh and re-attachment of new sacrocolpopexy mesh. Results Two patients presented with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed surgical treatment. The first case is a 68-year-old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, sacrocolpopexy, and mid-urethral sling performed at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 3 prolapse. Mesh was loosely attached to the cervix. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 1 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. The second case is a 62-year old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post-total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 2 prolapse. The mesh was loosely attached to the vagina. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 0 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. Both patients reported improvement in symptoms and overall quality of life. Conclusions Surgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed initial sacrocolpopexy procedure can be safely accomplished laparoscopically through identification of points of mesh detachment, anatomical landmarks, removal of the prior vaginal portion of the mesh, and attachment of a new surgical mesh to either the sacrum or the sacral portion of the mesh.
ISSN:0937-3462
1433-3023
DOI:10.1007/s00192-021-04818-7