Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy

Abstract

AbstractTo compare pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence and morbidity between first and second line sacrocolpopexies. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexies for POP-Q stage ≥ 2, with or without a history of previous prolapse repair, performed with a similar technique between January 2012 and June 2019 in 3 European Gynecologic Surgery Departments. Patients were separated into two groups: first line sacrocolpopexy (FLS) and second line sacrocolpopexy (SLS). Each patient from the SLS group was age-matched with a patient from the FLS group. The primary outcome measure was reoperation procedures for recurrent POP defined as a symptomatic POP-Q stage ≥ 2 POP in at least one vaginal compartment. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative organ trauma, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative POP recurrence (operated on or not), global reoperation and mesh-related complications. During this period, 332 patients were included. After age-matching, 170 patients were analyzed: 85 patients in the FLS and SLS groups, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 3 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of recurrent POP (9.4% versus 10.6%, p = 0.7), recurrent POP reoperation (3.5% versus 5.9% p = 0.7), mesh-related reoperation (0% versus 2.4%, p = 0.5), global reoperation (3.5 versus 8.2%, p = 0.3), operative time (198 ± 67 min versus 193 ± 60 min, p = 0.5), intraoperative complications such as organ injury (4.7% versus 7.1%, p = 0.7) and blood loss > 500 mL (2.4% versus 0%, p = 0.5). Patients who underwent a first or a second line sacrocolpopexy seemed to have similar rates of prolapse recurrence and complications.