Abstract:Study Objective To evaluate the clinical benefits of laparoscopic pectopexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Design Prospective cohort study. Setting A tertiary hospital. Patients We included 203 patients with POP. Interventions Laparoscopic pectopexy or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Measurements and main results Anatomical effectiveness was measured using the POP-quantification (POP-Q) system, both pre- and post-operation. Functional recovery effectiveness was evaluated using complications and recurrence rates within one year. Quality of life (QOL) was assessed by the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL) questionnaires at enrollment and postoperative months 3, 6, and 12. Comparisons between groups were performed using t- test, Chi-square test, and mixed-effects model with repeated measures. The analysis included 203 eligible patients (sacrocolpopexy 101; pectopexy 102). The proportion of robotic-assisted surgeries was lower in the pectopexy group than in the sacrocolpopexy group (15.7% vs. 41.6%, p <0.001). The average operation time of pectopexy was shorter than that of sacrocolpopexy (174.2 vs. 187.7 mins) with a mean difference of 13.5 min (95%CI, 3.9-23.0; p =0.006). Differences of intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay and postoperative 7-day complications between groups were not significant. Anatomical successes were obtained in both groups with similar improvement in POP-Q scores. The rate of urinary symptoms recurrence was higher in the pectopexy group (13.7%) than in the sacrocolpexy group (5.0%) at the one-year follow-up (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1-8.8, p =0.032). The PFDI-20 and I-QOL scores were better improved at postoperative months 3, 6 and 12 for laparoscopic pectopexy than for sacrocolpopexy. Conclusion Laparoscopic pectopexy revealed comparable anatomical success, shorter operation time, and better improvement in QOL scores of prolapse, colorectal-anal and urinary symptoms at 1-year follow-up, possibly being an alternative when sacrocolpopexy is not practicable. However, clinicians should pay more attention to the recurrence of urinary symptoms after pectopexy.

Time Course of Cerebral Magnetic Resonance Changes after Electroconvulsive Therapy

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Vs Transvaginal Mesh Repair for Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse: 1 Year Results of a Multicenter Randomized Study

1473 Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Sis Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Plus Colporrhaphy with an Small Intestine Submucosa Graft Versus Total Pelvic Floor Reconstruction for Advanced Prolapse: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapsed.

Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy Versus Transvaginal Mesh Pelvic Floor Reconstruction Surgery for Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Identification of key success factors and challenges for ERP systems — A systematic literature review

Comparison between laparoscopic uterus/sacrocolpopexy and total pelvic floor reconstruction with vaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Long-term treatment outcomes of transvaginal mesh surgery versus anterior-posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Medium-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy or Sacrohysteropexy Versus Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixationfor Middle Compartment Prolapse

The Clinical Efficacy Of Biologic Mesh And Synthetic Mesh For Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery

Effectiveness of laparoscopic pectopexy for pelvic organ prolapse compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Susceptibility of larvae of the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina to various Heterorhabditis spp., Neoaplectana spp., and in undescribed steinernematid (Nematoda).

[Preliminary Study on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treated by Using Small Intestinal Submucosa Mesh].

Activation of the human epsilon- and beta-globin promoters by SV40 T antigen.

Comparison of Different Laparoscopic Sacropexy Procedures for Advanced Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis

Midterm Comparison of Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension and Sacrocolpopexy in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Apical Prolapse

Retrospective Cohort Study of Recovery From Sacrocolpopexy Versus Nonmesh Prolapse Repair

Correction of Rectus Abdominis Diastasis: A Prospective Comparative Study Between a New Suturable Polypropylene Mesh vs Polypropylene Standard Suture Plication

Long‐term Treatment Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery Versus Anterior–posterior Colporrhaphy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

[Biopharmaceuticals and biosimilars in oncology: where are we?].