[Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: laparoscopic or vaginal sacrocolpopexy?].

Objective: To compare the safety and the efficacy of the laparoscopic and vaginal technique for the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse, with systematic support of the three compartments and prosthetic reinforcements.

Patients And Methods: Retrospective study of 154 patients presenting a stage 3 or 4 prolapse on one of the three compartments. Laparoscopic procedures were performed with subtotal hysterectomy, double synthetic prosthesis attached to promontory, and douglassectomy. Vaginal procedures were performed with vaginal hysterectomy, anterior colporrhaphy with a hammock using porcine skin collagen implant fixed by transobturator passages, unilateral sacral colpopexy and posterior colporrhaphy. Monitoring was performed at six months and then annually.

Results: The laparoscopic technique requires a more important operating time, but a shorter hospitalization. The discovery of three carcinoma reinforces the idea of the interest of uterine radical surgery in these patients. The tolerance of prostheses by laparoscopy is safe. The biological prostheses, introduced vaginally, offer the same advantages. The anatomical results in the medium term (30 months) seem more favorable to laparoscopy than transvaginal approach, as well as functional results but they still need to better evaluated.

Discussion And Conclusion: The two techniques must coexist, ideally without competing with each other but rather complementarily, as the overall rate of recurrence, requiring additional procedure does not exceed 2%. It is therefore important that surgeons, who support prolapse, have a good comprehensive training of the laparoscopic and vaginal techniques.