
==== Front
Int J Womens Health
Int J Womens Health
ijwh
International Journal of Women's Health
1179-1411
Dove

474835
10.2147/IJWH.S474835
Original Research
Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy for the Management of Uterovaginal Prolapse: a Pilot, Single-Center Experience from Saudi Arabia
Hafedh et al
Hafedh et al
Hafedh Bandr 1
Idris Sarah Mohammed 1
Nadreen Farah 1
Banasser Abdulrhman M 1
Iskandarani Radiah 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0427-8758
Baradwan Saeed 1
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Correspondence: Saeed Baradwan, Email dr.saeed_bardwan@yahoo.com
10 9 2024
2024
16 14831491
20 6 2024
06 9 2024
© 2024 Hafedh et al.
2024
Hafedh et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
Background

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is an emerging uterine-preserving strategy for management of uterovaginal prolapse (UVP). The literature on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of UVP is very scarce from Saudi Arabia. This research examined the feasibility, clinical utility, and safety of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in a Saudi setting.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted, including all patients who met the inclusion criteria. The laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy technique was adapted with modifications from the “Oxford hysteropexy”. The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as anatomical success in all vaginal compartments (UVP grade 0 or 1 postoperatively). The secondary endpoint was the mean change in point C. Descriptive data were summarized with numbers and percentages, while numerical data used means ± standard deviations. Fisher’s exact and Student’s t tests were used for univariate analyses. Significant surgical outcome predictors were identified via logistic regression, with p <0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

Overall, 21 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent indication for laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was UVP without anterior or posterior wall prolapse (n = 15, 71.4%), whereas the most frequent grade of UVP was grade III (n = 13, 61.9%). One patient (4.8%) required switch to laparotomy due to severe adhesions. No perioperative complications were recorded. The mean change in point C and hospital stay were 5.8 ± 2.1 (range: 0–8) and 1.4 ± 0.6 days (range: 1–3), respectively. Surgical success was achieved in 18 patients (85.7%). Only three patients experienced recurrences (one, two, and six months postoperatively). The mean change in point C was significantly higher in successful cases contrasted with the failed cases (6.5 versus 1.3).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of uterovaginal prolapse revealed technical feasibility, safety, and beneficial utility of the procedure. Further large-sized and multicentric investigations are important to gather additional pertinent information on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy.

Keywords

pelvic organ prolapse
uterovaginal prolapse
sacrohysteropexy
surgical failure
success rate
study was not funded This study was not funded.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) operation for women varies from as low as 10% to as high as 20%.1,2 It has been depicted that roughly half of women aged over 50 years are diagnosed with uterovaginal prolapse.3,4 As populations age, surgical intervention rates are expected to rise.5 Vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension remains the favored surgical tactic for uterine prolapse among urogynecologists, acknowledging its association with the more frequent anterior wall prolapse and apical drop.6,7 Nonetheless, findings from a high-quality clinical trial indicate a potential drawback, with this approach showing an elevated surgical failure frequency close to 35% at two years postoperatively.8 The probability of undergoing a succeeding reoperation for post-hysterectomy vault prolapse ranges from 5% to 20%.9,10 Given the choice, many women with uterine prolapse would rather to dodge hysterectomy if similarly efficient substitutes were existing.11

Indeed, the idea of preserving the uterus during uterovaginal prolapse surgery has gained significant popularity.12,13 Various techniques, including laparoscopic, abdominal, and vaginal approaches, have been illustrated, each with differing success rates.14 These procedures not only maintain fertility in women but also hold the prospective to substantially enhance prolapse symptoms, psychological health, and sexual activity.14 Moreover, by utilizing non-absorbable tools to add force to weakened connective tissues and ligaments, they may also help decrease the jeopardy of apical prolapse reappearance.14

Along these lines, laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is a safe uterine-preserving alternative which involves attaching the uterus to the sacrum using mesh and other sustaining materials to provide support and prevent further descent.13,15–20 Overall, the literature on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of POP is insufficient from Saudi Arabia.15 There is a significant necessity to document single-center experiences on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy. Such research reports play a crucial role in enriching the limited literature and serve as valuable benchmarks to encourage the adoption of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy nationwide.

This study was conducted to gauge the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in a Saudi setting while also identifying factors that predict failure/recurrence. We hypothesized that laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy would be a feasible, safe, and effective method for managing patients with uterovaginal prolapse.

Materials and Methods

We carried out a retrospective study at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. There was no formal sampling calculation as the research considered all research subjects who met the eligibility criteria. The research protocol was granted ethical approval by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB).

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) women who underwent primary laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse, (ii) procedures performed between January 1, 2014, and July 31, 2023, (iii) patients with a confirmed clinical or radiological diagnosis of uterovaginal prolapse, (iv) patients with a follow-up period of at least six months, and (v) patients with complete data. Patients who did not meet any of these criteria were excluded.

The technique for laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was adapted with modifications from the “Oxford hysteropexy”.21 Patients are informed and counseled about the risks and benefits associated with the surgical procedure. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon who had specialized fellowship training, in addition to help from two assistants. All patients followed a clear fluid diet and bowel preparation the evening before procedure. Intraoperative antibiotics and paracetamol were administered. After administering sufficient anesthesia and positioning the patient in dorsal lithotomy, an indwelling catheter and uterine manipulator were inserted. Pink pads were regularly employed to prevent patient slippage in the Trendelenburg position. Entry into the peritoneal cavity was facilitated using a Veress needle technique either in the umbilical area or in the left upper abdominal quadrant. A 5-mm trocar was placed supra umbilically as well as two 5-mm lower lateral ports. The 10-mm port was inserted at the Palmer point. This port is used for mesh insertion and suturing port. The landmark of the sacral promontory was recognized; the superimposing peritoneum was dissected with a harmony device and the incision continued caudally, staying medial to the right ureter and aiming toward the right uterosacral ligament in the right pararectal space. When the anterior longitudinal sacral ligament was identified, a rectangular shape of polypropylene mesh (Gynecare) measuring approximately 5–6 cm was brought to the operative field. The caudal end of the mesh was attached to the posterior cervix with a synthetic, monofilament, non-absorbable 2.0 prolene suture, a total of 5–6 interrupted stitches using extracorporeal technique. The upper end of the mesh was cut and secured to the sacral promontory using 4 protacks, ensuring minimal tension while positioning the cervix at the plane of the ischial spines. Unwarranted tension was averted to reduce the hazard of vaginal deviation, new-onset stress incontinence, recurrent prolapse, and cervical extension. The peritoneum was closed using an absorbable suture with 0 V-Loc barbed sutures. Hemostasis was secured in the retroperitoneal space as well as the right ureter was inspected for peristalses. Patients were discharged the day after procedure and scheduled for outpatient visits in 14–21 days.

We gathered three categories of data. First, the preoperative data comprised patient’s age, body mass index (BMI), parity, coexisting morbidity, coexisting cancer, history of previous surgery, type of uterovaginal prolapse, and degree of uterovaginal prolapse.22 Second, the intraoperative data comprised duration of surgery, estimated intraoperative blood loss (EBL), conversion to open laparotomy, intraoperative blood transfusion, mesh type, simultaneous surgery, and occurrence of intraoperative complications. Third, the postoperative data comprised the anatomical success and failure rates (based on the POP-quantification, POP-Q),22 onset of failure, relapse rate, length of hospital stay, mean change in point C, and postoperative complications. Anatomical success in each vaginal compartment (apical, anterior, and posterior) was defined as achieving a grade of 0 or 1. The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as anatomical success in all vaginal compartments (UVP grade 0 or 1 postoperatively). The secondary endpoint was the mean change in point C.

We analyzed data using the Social Package for Social Sciences software. Numbers and percentages were used to summarize descriptive data, whereas means ± standard deviations (ranges) were used to summarize the numerical data. Univariate analyses of categorical and numerical data were accomplished using Fisher’s exact and student’s t tests, respectively. We identified significant predictors of surgical outcome through logistic regression analysis, controlling for age, obesity, diabetes, grade of POP severity, and type of mesh. All analyses were two-sided and statistical significance was set at a p-value less than 0.05.

Results

Twenty-one patients were analyzed. Table 1 summarizes the preoperative data. The average age was 44.1 ± 13.2 years (range: 19–65), whereas the average BMI was 21.8 ± 9.2 kg/m2 (range: 16.4–48.7), respectively. Seven patients (33.3%) were categorized as obese at the time of operation. Twelve patients (57.1%) had previous surgeries. The most frequent indication for laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was uterine prolapse without anterior or posterior prolapse (n = 15, 71.4%), whereas the most frequent grade of POP was grade III (n = 13, 61.9%).Table 1 The Preoperative Details of All Patients

Age (years), mean ± standard deviation (range)	44.1 ± 13.2 (19–65)	
Body mass index (kg/m2), mean ± standard deviation (range)	21.8 ± 9.2 (16.4–48.7)	
Parity, mean ± standard deviation (range)	3.62 ± 2.4 (0–8)	
Obesity (≥30 kg/m2), n (%)	7 (33.3)	
Previous pelvic and/or abdominal surgery, n (%)	12 (57.1)	
Previous vaginal delivery, n (%)	16 (76.2)	
Coexisting morbidity, n (%)	10 (47.6)	
Coexisting diabetes, n (%)	5 (23.8)	
Coexisting occult stress incontinence, n (%)	6 (28.6)	
Type of uterovaginal prolapse		
 Uterine prolapse, n (%)	15 (71.4)	
 Uterine prolapse and anterior wall prolapse, n (%)	5 (23.8)	
 Uterine prolapse and posterior wall prolapse, n (%)	1 (4.8)	
Grade of uterovaginal prolapse		
 Grade II, n (%)	2 (9.5)	
 Grade III, n (%)	13 (61.9)	
 Grade IV, n (%)	6 (28.6)	

Table 2 summarizes the intraoperative data. Eleven patients had concomitant procedures besides the laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (47.6%). The average operative time was 199.3 ± 59.4 min (range: 105–300), whereas the EBL was 156.2 ± 133.4 mL (range: 30–500). The most frequent used type of mesh was single polypropylene mesh (n = 18, 58.7%). Three patients (n = 3, 41.3%) received double polypropylene mesh layers because the operating surgeon subjectively sought greater support, enhanced durability, and better stress distribution to minimize the risk of mesh detachment or migration. One patient (4.8%) required switch to laparotomy due to severe adhesions. No intraoperative complications were recorded inclusive of injuries to vagina, ureter, bowel, urinary bladder, or blood vessel.Table 2 The Intraoperative Details of All Patients

Operative time (min), mean ± standard deviation (range)	199.3 ± 59.4 (105–300)	
Estimated blood loss (mL), mean ± standard deviation (range)	156.2 ± 133.4 (30–500)	
Conversion to laparotomy, n (%)	1 (4.8)	
Type of mesh		
 Single polypropylene layer, n (%)	18 (85.7)	
 Double polypropylene layers, n (%)	3 (14.3)	
Intraoperative complications, n (%)		
 Blood transfusion, n (%)	0 (0)	
 Ureteric injury, n (%)	0 (0)	
 Vessel injury, n (%)	0 (0)	
 Bowel injury, n (%)	0 (0)	
 Bladder injury, n (%)	0 (0)	
 Vaginal laceration, n (%)	0 (0)	
Concomitant procedures, n (%)		
 None	11 (52.4)	
 Anterior wall repair	2 (9.5)	
 Tension-free vaginal tape	3 (14.3)	
 Anterior wall repair + tension-free vaginal tape	1 (4.8)	
 Posterior wall repair + tension-free vaginal tape	1 (4.8)	
 Anterior wall repair + ovarian cystectomy	1 (4.8)	
 Anterior wall repair + tension-free vaginal tape + bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy	1 (4.8)	
 Removal and insertion of new intrauterine contraception device	1 (4.8)	

Table 3 summarizes the postoperative data. The mean change in point C and hospital stay were 5.8 ± 2.1 (range: 0–8) and 1.4 ± 0.6 days (range: 1–3), respectively. Surgical success was achieved in 18 patients (85.7%). Only three patients experienced recurrences, which had onsets at one, two, and six months postoperatively. The grades of POP among the failed cases comprised grades II, III, and IV, and none of these patients experienced cervicovaginal elongation. The treatment plans for the failed cases included conservative management in one patient and hysterectomy + sacrocolpopexy in two patients. Notably, all the three patients who experienced recurrences had uterine prolapse without anterior or posterior wall prolapse. No patient experienced postoperative complications.Table 3 The Postoperative Details of All Patients

Difference in point C, mean difference ± standard deviation (range)	5.76 ± 2.1 (0–8)	
Length of hospital stay (d), mean ± standard deviation (range)	1.4 ± 0.6 (1–3)	
Postoperative complications, n (%)	0 (0)	
Success rate, n (%)	18 (85.7)	
Failure rate, n (%)	3 (14.3)	

Table 4 summarizes the results of the rate of success according to various numerical variables. The mean change in point C was significantly higher in successful cases contrasted with the failed cases (6.5 versus 1.3). However, the rate of success did not significantly differ according to age, BMI, parity, duration of operation, EBL, and length of hospitalization. Table 5 summarizes the results of the rate of success according to various categorical variables. The findings revealed that the rate of success was not significantly correlated with obesity, parity, previous vaginal delivery, diabetes mellitus, type of POP, grade of POP, and type of mesh. Because of the limited number of cases (n = 3), multivariable regression analysis to identify predictors of recurrence following laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy could not be performed.Table 4 The Numerical Intraoperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Patients According to Rate of Success of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy

Outcome	Success	n	Mean	SD	MD	SE of MD	95% CI	p value	
Lower	Upper	
Age (years)	No	3	45.33	5.132	1.444	8.428	−16.196	19.085	0.866	
Yes	18	43.89	14.179	
Body mass index (kg/m2)	No	3	27.33	16.166	6.500	5.674	−5.377	18.377	0.266	
Yes	18	20.83	7.861	
Parity	No	3	2	3.464	−1.889	1.485	−4.998	1.220	0.219	
Yes	18	3.89	2.22	
Operative time	No	3	233.33	85.196	39.722	36.867	−37.442	116.887	0.295	
Yes	18	193.61	55.248	
Estimated blood loss (mL)	No	3	200	259.808	51.111	84.564	−125.883	228.105	0.553	
Yes	18	148.89	112.296	
Hospital stay (d)	No	3	1.33	0.577	−0.111	0.382	−0.910	0.687	0.774	
Yes	18	1.44	0.616	
Mean change in point C	No	3	1.33	1.155	−5.167	0.593	−6.407	−3.926	<0.001	
Yes	18	6.5	0.924	
Notes: The Student’s t–test was used for univariate analysis of numerical data.

Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval, MD: mean difference, SD: standard deviation, SE: standard error.

Table 5 The Categorical Intraoperative and Postoperative Outcomes of Patients According to Rate of Success of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy

Variables	Rate of success	
No (n=3)	Yes (n=18)	p value	
Obesity	No, n	2	12	1	
Yes, n	1	6	
Parity	No, n	2	2	0.08	
Yes, n	1	16	
Previous vaginal delivery	No, n	2	3	0.128	
Yes, n	1	15	
Diabetes mellitus	No, n	2	14	1	
Yes, n	1	4	
Type of uterovaginal prolapse	Uterine prolapse, n	3	12	0.497	
Uterine prolapse and anterior wall prolapse, n	0	5	
Uterine prolapse and posterior wall prolapse, n	0	1	
Severity of uterovaginal prolapse	Grade I–II, n	1	1	0.271	
Grade III–IV, n	2	17	
Type of mesh	Single, n	3	15	1	
Double, n	0	3	
Notes: The Fisher's exact test was used for univariate analysis of numerical data.

Discussion

In our retrospective analysis, we documented our experience at a single center, involving laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for the management of 21 patients with uterovaginal prolapse. Our findings demonstrated the technical feasibility, safety, and beneficial utility of the procedure.

In Saudi Arabia, the rate of POP is relatively high, ranging from 20% to 25% according to recent statistics from large-sized cross-sectional studies.23,24 The application of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy as a potential management strategy is very limited in Saudi Arabia. It is the standpoint of the authors that it appears that the employment of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy program faces a multitude of challenges attributable to administrative disagreement, reduced patient willingness, insufficient public awareness, and deficiency of national surgical proficiency. In 2023, Alsahabi et al conducted a pioneering investigation to scrutinize the effectiveness and safety of sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy in a Saudi setting.15 The study also aimed to identify indicators of recurrence in this context. During the period from 2009 to 2021, the authors tracked all women who had undergone sacrocolpopexy (n = 144) and sacrohysteropexy (n = 56). For the treatment of anterior, apical, and posterior vaginal prolapse, the success rates (defined as postoperative prolapse grade of 0 or 1) were 96.8%, 99.4%, and 85.2%, respectively. Among the 27 failure cases, the occurrence of failure occurred between 40 days and 11.5 years post procedure. After accounting for potential confounding factors, older age and the presence of diabetes were identified as the sole significant factors associated with operation failure. Regarding morbidities, six cases mandated reoperation. Also, two cases experienced bowel obstruction which took place two and seven years postoperatively. Additionally, one patient encountered vaginal mesh exposure postoperatively.15

On the other hand, Daniels et al assessed the role of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy on 157 patients with symptomatic prolapse, based on the experience of an Australian setting.17 The primary endpoint measured the success rate based on the POP-Q system. Secondary endpoints included the rates of complication and the outcomes of patients with stages III–IV prolapse. Among the patients, 134 patients underwent laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with simultaneous vaginal prolapse repair, while four patients had isolated laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy. Postoperatively, the average change from preoperative point C was 7.6 cm. At the postoperative 4–6-week follow-up, 136 out of 136 patients had stage 0 POP-Q scores, indicating successful outcomes. Among them, 22 patients experienced prolapse recurrence, while cure was observed in 116 patients at their latest follow-up. The recurrence of prolapse was associated with anterior vaginal mesh, number of vaginal deliveries, prior prolapse operation, and pre-surgical advanced stage III–IV disease.17

A minimum 7-year follow-up randomized study was performed to compare the clinical utility of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension in treating uterine prolapse in 101 women.13 None of the participants reported any adverse events associated with the mesh. The objective success rate based on apical reoperation was 83% after vaginal hysterectomy and 94% after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy. The hazard of reoperation for apical prolapse was significantly reduced in laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy arm compared with vaginal hysterectomy arm (6.1% vs 17.2%). In addition, laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy demonstrated a longer total vaginal length (9 cm versus 6 cm) and a higher apical suspension (POP-Q point C −5 versus −4.25) and a compared with vaginal hysterectomy. The study concluded that laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension exhibit similar rates of reoperation and patient-reported endpoints. Moreover, laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy offers potential advantages, such as a reduced odd of apical reoperation, enhanced apical reinforce, and higher total vaginal length.13

Using the abdominal approach for sacrohysteropexy, Khan et al reported a 100% success rate among 60 patients with POP.16 In contrast, Moiety et al reported subjective and objective success rates of 82% and 94%, respectively, at six months postoperatively.19

Preserving the uterus is crucial for young patients, promoting pelvic floor support, maintaining fertility, as well as enhancing sexual function and overall well-being.14 This approach reduces the risks associated with hysterectomy and can be completed more efficiently.14 In our study, the technical feasibility of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was evident in the acceptable parameters for operative time, blood loss, duration of operation, and length of hospitalization. No major intraoperative or postoperative morbidities were faced in our study, reflecting the safety of the operation. The low frequency of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy-related morbidities is consistent with previous reports.13,15–19

Our results revealed that laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy achieved a success rate of 85%, which is consistent with previously published investigations ranging between 80% and 100%.13,15–19 Several parameters have been depicted to impact the risk of recurrence or failure following surgery for POP. For example, young age has been documented as a notable risk factor for the recurrence of POP following surgery.25,26 Nonetheless, Alsahabi et al reported a contradictory finding whereby older age was linked to higher rate of POP prolapse.15 High BMI and tobacco smoking are additional substantial risk factors for POP recurrence.27 Further risk factors associated with higher failure rates following POP surgery include anterior vaginal mesh, number of vaginal deliveries, prior prolapse operation, and pre-surgical advanced stage III–IV disease.17

Schiavi et al evaluated the effectiveness and safety of vaginal native tissue repair for symptomatic posterior compartment repair of rectocele in 151 patients.28 With a median follow-up of 64 months, the median operative time was 55 minutes, and the median hospital stay was 2 days. There were no intraoperative complications. At follow-up, the objective cure rate was 88.2%, with 11.3% of patients experiencing recurrent posterior vaginal descent of stage II or higher. Significant improvements were observed in defecatory dysfunctions, vaginal digitation, and vaginal bulge. Quality of life, as measured by the Prolapse Quality-of-Life, Pelvic Floor Disability Index, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, improved significantly post surgery. Additionally, the percentage of patients engaging in regular sexual activity increased, and instances of dyspareunia decreased. The study concluded that vaginal native tissue repair is a safe and effective treatment for symptomatic rectocele, offering low complication rates and enhancements in POP-related symptoms, quality of life, and sexual function.28

Our study has several strengths that should be acknowledged. First, the literature on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of POP is very scarce from Saudi Arabia and our current research aimed to bridge this gap. Second, a single surgeon conducted all surgeries, ensuring uniformity in surgical techniques across all cases. Third, we used objective tools to define the success rate of the procedure. Nonetheless, our study also has several limitations that should be admitted. First, the small sample size of our cohort represents the major limitation, which prevented us from arriving at powerful conclusions and performing reliable subgroup analyses. Second, our study was carried out exclusively on patients from a single hospital, all of whom underwent surgery performed by a sole surgeon, hence this limitation might hinder the generalization of our conclusions. Third, we did not explore the patients’ self-reported improvement in their symptoms, which is also equally important to the objective assessment of surgical success. Fourth, we did not evaluate the preoperative and postoperative changes in POP-Q scores, including Ba, Bp, C, TVL, and Gh.

Our retrospective analysis from a single center underscores the technical feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in managing uterovaginal prolapse among 21 patients. These findings suggest that laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is a viable option for patients with uterovaginal prolapse, offering significant clinical benefits. By contributing valuable data to the scarce Saudi literature, this research helps to fill gaps in the local context and supports the broader international understanding of the procedure. Future research should focus on larger, multicenter studies to validate these results and compare the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with other surgical interventions. Additionally, exploring patient-reported outcomes and quality of life measures will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the procedure’s impact.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of uterovaginal prolapse revealed technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the procedure. Our results were in line with previous research. In view of the limitations presented, further large-sized and multicenter studies are needed to gather additional pertinent information on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy.

Ethical Approval

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Research Advisory Council (RAC) at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (RAC approval identifier: 2023-93). Informed consent was obtained from all study participants prior to study commencement.

Disclosure

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in this work.
==== Refs
References

1. Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29 (11 ):1689–1695. doi:10.1007/s00192-018-3731-2 30078099
2. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116 (5 ):1096–1100. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729 20966694
3. Hove MC S-T, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJ, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20 (9 ):1037–1045. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0902-1 19444368
4. Thakar R, Stanton S. Management of genital prolapse. BMJ. 2002;324 (7348 ):1258–1262. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7348.1258 12028982
5. Chow D, Rodríguez LV. Epidemiology and prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23 (4 ):293–298. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e3283619ed0 23619578
6. Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK National Prolapse Survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29 (6 ):795–801. doi:10.1007/s00192-017-3476-3 28914338
7. Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L. Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195 (6 ):1837–1840. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.065 17132485
8. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311 (10 ):1023–1034. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.1719 24618964
9. Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, et al. Effect of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation With or Without Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Pelvic Organ Vaginal Prolapse on Surgical Outcomes and Prolapse Symptoms at 5 Years in the OPTIMAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;319 (15 ):1554–1565. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.2827 29677302
10. Edenfield AL, Amundsen CL, Weidner AC, Wu JM, George A, Siddiqui NY. Vaginal prolapse recurrence after uterosacral ligament suspension in normal-weight compared with overweight and obese women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121 (3 ):554–559. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182839eeb 23635618
11. Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19 (2 ):103–109. doi:10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667 23442508
12. Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26 (11 ):1687–1694. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2761-2 26142347
13. Izett-Kay ML, Rahmanou P, Cartwright RJ, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33 (7 ):1957–1965. doi:10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6 34424347
14. Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Porena M, Mearini L, Costantini E. Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7 (11 ):626–633. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2010.164 21068763
15. Alsahabi JA, Alsary S, Abolfotouh MA. The Outcome of Sacrocolpopexy/Sacrohysteropexy for Patients with Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Predictors of Anatomical Failure. Int J Women's Health. 2023;15 :1093–1105. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S413729 37483888
16. Khan A, Jaleel R, Nasrullah FD. Sacrohysteropexy performed as uterus conserving surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: review of case files. Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32 (5 ):1174–1178. doi:10.12669/pjms.325.10307 27882016
17. Daniels S, Robson D, Palacz M, Howell S, Nguyen T, Behnia-Willison F. Success rates and outcomes of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60 (2 ):244–249. doi:10.1111/ajo.13104 31840811
18. Tahir S, Yasmin N, Kanwal S, Aleem M. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse. Annals Punjab Medi Col. 2012;6 (1 ):75–80.
19. Moiety FM, Hegab HM, Ghanem IA, Zedan WM, Salem HA. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective study on 33 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281 (4 ):631–636. doi:10.1007/s00404-009-1146-5 19529953
20. Izett-Kay ML, Aldabeeb D, Kupelian AS, et al. Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31 (12 ):2595–2602. doi:10.1007/s00192-020-04396-0 32620978
21. Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: a novel technique for uterine preservation surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25 (1 ):139–140. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2129-4 24193260
22. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175 (1 ):10–17. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0 8694033
23. Al-Badr A, Saleem Z, Kaddour O, et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor dysfunction: a Saudi national survey. BMC Women's Health. 2022;22 (1 ):27. doi:10.1186/s12905-022-01609-0 35120501
24. Malaekah H, Al Medbel HS, Al Mowallad S, Al Asiri Z, Albadrani A, Abdullah H. Prevalence of pelvic floor dysfunction in women in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Women's Heal. 2022;18 :17455065211072252. doi:10.1177/17455065211072252
25. Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191 (5 ):1533–1538. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.109 15547521
26. Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A. Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery: a review at 5 years after surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18 (11 ):1317–1324. doi:10.1007/s00192-007-0321-0 17333439
27. Schulten SF, Detollenaere RJ, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, Van Eijndhoven HW. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;227 (2 ):252.e1–e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.017
28. Schiavi MC, D’Oria O, Faiano P, et al. Vaginal Native Tissue Repair for Posterior Compartment Prolapse: long-Term Analysis of Sexual Function and Quality of Life in 151 Patients. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24 (6 ):419–423. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000463 28786873
