Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse.We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years.89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 ± 7.46 vs 41.81 ± 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 ± 0.90 vs 3.74 ± 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 ± 0.75 vs 7.21 ± 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (- 6.83 ± 0.54 vs - 6.39 ± 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups.TS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse. Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered).© 2022. The Author(s).

To study the efficacy and safety of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in the treatment of moderate and severe pelvic organ prolapse.

To objectively assess the safety, feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) versus conventional vaginal (CV) surgery for sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF).We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent hysterectomy for SSLF via vNOTES or CV surgery due to apical compartment prolapse between April 2019 and April 2020 at our hospital. The patients were classified into the vNOTES group (n = 31) and CV surgery group (n = 51) based on surgical approach and their general characteristics and perioperative outcomes compared.The two groups had similar general characteristics. The anatomical success and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy rates were higher in the vNOTES than CV surgery group, while the postoperative stay was shorter in the vNOTES than CV surgery group. All differences were statistically significant. However, there were no statistically significant intergroup differences in operation time, bilateral salpingectomy rate, colporrhaphy rate, postoperative visual analog scale score, estimated blood loss, hemoglobin decrease at 72 h postoperative, maximum body temperature at 72 h postoperative, complication rate, buttock pain, or Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 scores at 1 year postoperative.VNOTES for SSLF was safe and feasible and resulted in superior objective and subjective outcomes versus CV surgery for SSLF. These findings suggest that vNOTES could be an alternative to CV surgery for SSLF.© 2023. The Author(s).

Vaginal vault prolapse is one of the main reasons for reoperation in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Effective correction of the vaginal apex is essential for lasting repair for these women. Apical suspension of the sacrospinous ligament is probably one of the main vaginal treatments still offered to patients today. We proposed an evaluation of the functional and anatomical results of long-term sacrospinous ligament fixation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 10-year results of sacrospinous ligament suspension as primary repair for apical prolapse and to evaluate long-term side effects. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study analyzed 10-year follow-up after prolapse repair using sacrospinous ligament suspension. A subjective recurrence was identified as the postoperative occurrence of swelling symptoms based on a particular item on the Italian Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QoL) questionnaire. An objective recurrence was defined as a postoperative decline to stage II or below in any compartment based on the POP-Q system or the requirement for additional surgery. The assessment of postoperative subjective satisfaction was conducted using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score. Results: In total, 40 patients underwent sacrospinous ligament fixation. Objective recurrence was remarkably high, as it was observed in 17 (56.7%) patients. Subjective recurrence was reported by ten (33.3%) women, and reintervention occurred in two (6.7%) of patients. From the point of view of quality of life, according to the PGI-I, twenty-three (76.7%) patients described some degree of improvement after surgery, four (13.3%) described their status as unmodified, and three (10%) reported some form of worsening after primary treatment. Conclusions: Transvaginal repair with sacrospinous fixation is a long-lasting option for prolapse repair, with improvement in every POP-q parameter. Some degree of anterior recurrence, recurrence of symptoms with swelling, or an overall worsening of quality of life after surgery is possible.