Laparoscopic versus vaginal native tissue repair in combination with pectopexy. Sub-analysis from an international, prospective, and multi-centre study: short term results

Abstract

Introduction

The use of mesh for vaginal repairs is currently problematic and as a consequence, there is increased interest in native tissue repair. We describe the follow-up data of a sub-analysis of a prospective and multi-center study focusing on the combination of pectopexy and native tissue repair. Patients were followed up for 12–18 months after surgery (+ SD: 15). Two-hundred and sixty-four patients attended the clinics for physical examination and were integrated into the follow-up. Cystocele repair was performed laparoscopically in 84 patients and vaginally in 52 patients. Posterior repair was performed vaginally in 40 patients and laparoscopically in 53 patients.

Results

Clinical success rate, patient recommendations and patient satisfaction rates were similar in both groups. The laparoscopic anterior repair resulted in an 89% cure or anatomical improvement rate; this compared to 94.2% for the vaginal approach. In the posterior group, laparoscopy resulted in a 94.3% cure or improvement rate compared to 97.5% in the second group.

Conclusions

The outcomes of both strategies showed satisfactory results in our study. Consequently, surgeons may choose between the two strategies according to their preference and skill. The two approaches only differed with regard to vaginal scarring. We suggest future research investigating the long-term impact of scarring.

Keywords:

• Laparoscopy
• mesh
• native tissue
• pelvic floor repair
• vaginal repair

Declaration of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.