A comparative analysis of two-year anatomical and functional outcomes of laparoscopic lateral suspension versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A retrospective cohort study


Creative Commons License

Öztürk U. K., Bağlar İ., Şanlikan F., Keleş E., Yildirim Köpük Ş., TOPRAK T.

Pelviperineology, cilt.44, sa.2, ss.67-70, 2025 (Scopus, TRDizin)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 44 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2025
  • Doi Numarası: 10.34057/ppj.2025.44.02.2025-7-1
  • Dergi Adı: Pelviperineology
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.67-70
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Cystocele, enterocele, MeSH, pelvic floor
  • Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
  • Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Objective: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is the current gold standard for the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS), a more recently developed technique, has emerged as a viable alternative, obviating the need for sacral promontory dissection and featuring a shorter learning curve. This study aimed to compare the two-year outcomes of LLS and LSC in terms of anatomical success, quality of life, and complication rates. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 149 patients who underwent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) stage ≥2 apical prolapse between January 2020 and December 2022. Of these, 73 patients underwent LLS and 76 underwent LSC. Anatomical success was evaluated over a two-year follow-up period using POP-Q criteria. Quality of life was assessed using validated questionnaires: The pelvic floor distress inventory-20 and the pelvic floor impact questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7). Patient-reported improvement was measured with the patient global index of improvement. Postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Reoperation rates and urinary and sexual functions were also evaluated. Results: The overall anatomical success rates were comparable between the groups, with 94.5% in the LLS group and 92.1% in the LSC group (p=0.52). The LLS group demonstrated a significantly higher rate of anterior compartment correction (89.0% vs. 76.3%; p=0.04) and superior quality of life scores on the PFIQ-7 (p=0.03). The minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grades I-II) was significantly lower in the LLS group compared to the LSC group (4.1% vs. 7.9%; p=0.04). Conclusion: LLS provides anatomical success rates comparable to LSC for the treatment of apical prolapse. Furthermore, LLS is associated with superior outcomes in the correction of anterior compartment prolapse and patient-reported quality of life, along with a lower risk of minor postoperative complications.