Vol 94, No 7 (2023)
Research paper
Published online: 2023-01-13

open access

Page views 1095
Article views/downloads 293
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Effects of unilateral apical sling and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on the outcome in women with apical prolapse: randomised trial

Botagoz Aitbayeva1, Serik Iskakov1, Yelena Lushchaeva2, Galymzhan Toktarbekov2, Kamilla Kenbayeva2
Pubmed: 36929794
Ginekol Pol 2023;94(7):559-564.


Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the use of unilateral apical sling versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of the apical form of pelvic organ prolapse in women.

Material and methods: A prospective, single-center randomized trial included 100 patients who were alternately assigned to treatment. Each patient had a ≥ III stage of apical or anterior-apical prolapse determined by the POP-Q system. 45 accepted for unilateral apical sling (UAS) and 55 accepted for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS). Data were compared by the One-way ANOVA test using IBM SPSS stats 19.

Results: Mean operating time was significantly greater in the LS group versus UAS group, 194.6 vs 42.4 minutes, respectively (p < 0.05). The amount of intraoperative bleeding was significantly higher in the UAS group, compared to the LS group (p = 0.01). Within the follow-up period, 2 patients in UAS group and 3 patients in LS group (4.4% vs 5.4%, respectively; p = 0.9) had recurrent cystocoele. HRQoL and sexual outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups.

Conclusions: Our data demonstrate the non-superiority one on each other of the two different approaches, except in terms of shorter operating time and higher intraoperative bleeding when UAS used. These findings raise questions about the need for long-term results of quality of life outcomes for women with genital prolapse, especially in resource-limited settings similar to Kazakhstan.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. de Mattos Lourenço TR, Pergialiotis V, Durnea C, et al. CHORUS: An International Collaboration for Harmonising Outcomes, Research, and Standards in Urogynaecology and Women's Health. A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in randomized controlled trials on apical prolapse surgery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019; 145(1): 4–11.
  2. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, et al. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116(5): 1096–1100.
  3. Forde J, Chughtai B, Anger J, et al. Role of concurrent vaginal hysterectomy in the outcomes of mesh-based vaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery. International Urogynecology Journal. 2017; 28(8): 1183–1195.
  4. Bartsch KD, DeLancey JO. A technique to study cervical descent. Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 72: 940–943.
  5. Harvey MA, Chih HJu, Geoffrion R, et al. International Urogynecology Consultation Chapter 1 Committee 5: relationship of pelvic organ prolapse to associated pelvic floor dysfunction symptoms: lower urinary tract, bowel, sexual dysfunction and abdominopelvic pain. Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32(10): 2575–2594.
  6. Sabbagh R, Mandron E, Piussan J, et al. Long-term anatomical and functional results of laparoscopic promontofixation for pelvic organ prolapse. BJU Int. 2010; 106(6): 861–866.
  7. Hirvonen EA, Nuutinen LS, Kauko M. Hemodynamic changes due to Trendelenburg positioning and pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1995; 39(7): 949–955.
  8. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014; 311(10): 1023–1034.
  9. ÜNLÜBİLGİN E, SİVASLIOĞLU A, İLHAN T, et al. Which one is the appropriate approach for uterine prolapse: Manchester procedure or vaginal hysterectomy? Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences. 2013; 33(2): 321–325.
  10. Doğanay M, Aksakal O. Minimally invasive sacrospinous ligament suspension: perioperative morbidity and review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287(6): 1167–1172.
  11. Hefni MA, El-Toukhy TA. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006; 127(2): 257–263.
  12. Sharp TR. Sacrospinous suspension made easy. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 82(5): 873–875.
  13. Veronikis D, Nichols D. Ligature carrier specifically designed for transvaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey. 1997; 89(3): 478–481.
  14. Lovatsis D, P Drutz H. Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 15(5): 435–437.
  15. Shkarupa D, Kubin N, Pisarev A, et al. The hybrid technique of pelvic organ prolapse treatment: apical sling and subfascial colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28(9): 1407–1413.
  16. Kim BoH, Lee SB, Na ED, et al. Correlation between obesity and pelvic organ prolapse in Korean women. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2020; 63(6): 719–725.
  17. 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.
  18. Shkarupa D, Kubin N, Shapovalova E, et al. The resurrection of sacrospinous fixation: unilateral apical sling hysteropexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31(2): 351–357.
  19. Acsinte OM, Rabischong B, Bourdel N, et al. Laparoscopic Promontofixation in 10 Steps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018; 25(5): 767.
  20. Brandt C, Rooyen CV, Cronje H. Validation of the prolapse quality of life questionnaire (P-QOL): an Afrikaans version in a South African population. S Afr J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 22(2): 38.
  21. Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 2011; 26(2): 191–208.
  22. Ghoniem G, Hammett J. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery practice patterns: IUGA member survey. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26(10): 1489–1494.
  23. Nüssler E, Granåsen G, Bixo M, et al. Long-term outcome after routine surgery for pelvic organ prolapse-A national register-based cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2022; 33(7): 1863–1873.
  24. FDA Public Health Notification: Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh in Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Stress Urinary Incontinence. http://www.amiform.com/web/documents-risques-op-coelio-vagi/fda-notification-about-vaginal-mesh.pdf (20.09.2022).
  25. Lee D, Bacsu C, Zimmern PE. Meshology: a fast-growing field involving mesh and/or tape removal procedures and their outcomes. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2015; 12(2): 201–216.
  26. Shkarupa D, Kubin N, Staroseltseva O. Full-thickness vascularized vaginal flap as the fixation point in the surgical treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32(11): 3085–3087.
  27. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123(6): 1201–1206.
  28. Razbekova M, Issanov A, Chan MY, et al. Genetic factors associated with obesity risks in a Kazakhstani population. BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2021; 4(1): 90–101.
  29. Metcalfe ND, Shandley LM, Young MR, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after apical prolapse repair: does obesity matter? Int Urogynecol J. 2022; 33(2): 275–284.
  30. Baines G, Price N, Jefferis H, et al. Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30(9): 1475–1481.