Pectopexy vs sacrocolpopexy: an analysis of 50 cases in a North American hospital
Name:
1-s2.0-S2666577823000953.pdf
Size:
359.4Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Published Version
Affiliation
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of ArizonaCollege of Medicine, University of Arizona
Issue Date
2023-07-17
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Elsevier Inc.Citation
Heusinkveld, J., Khandekar, M., Winget, V., Tigner, A., & Addis, I. (2023). Pectopexy vs sacrocolpopexy: an analysis of 50 cases in a North American hospital. AJOG Global Reports, 3(3), 100254.Journal
AJOG Global ReportsRights
© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pectopexy is an alternative to sacrocolpopexy that was first reported in 2010. This procedure has been performed at our hospital since 2019 in patients with contraindications to sacrocolpopexy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the outcomes of 50 cases of pectopexy with historical outcomes data for sacrocolpopexy. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of 50 laparoscopic pectopexies performed from July 2020 to July 2022 at an academic tertiary referral center; this was the second reported use of this technique in North America. The outcomes from laparoscopic pectopexy were compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy performed at the same institution by the same surgeons (n=207). The primary outcomes were complication rate, rate of recurrent prolapse (stage II or greater), and reoperation. RESULTS: Overall complication rates were 6.0% for pectopexy and 16.5% for sacrocolpopexy (relative risk, 0.79; P=.65). Recurrent prolapse was seen among 2.0% of patients who underwent pectopexy and 6.3% of patients who underwent sacrocolpopexy at most recent follow-up (relative risk, 1.27; P=.66). The rates of reoperation were 2.0% for pectopexy and 3.9% for sacrocolpopexy (relative risk, 1.04; P=.96). The average operative times were 138 minutes for pectopexy and 158 minutes for sacrocolpopexy. The average lengths of follow-up were 88.1 days for pectopexy and 325.5 for sacrocolpopexy. CONCLUSION: Although pectopexy was typically employed in patients with extensive pelvic adhesions or other conditions that placed them at higher risk of complications, both the success rate and the adverse event rate were similar to those in the historical cohort who underwent sacrocolpopexy. Although sacrocolpopexy remains the gold standard operation for apical prolapse, our data suggest that pectopexy can be employed to offer similar outcomes in many patients with contraindications to sacral fixation. These data give us increasing confidence that we can counsel our patients that this operation is likely to produce an outcome similar to a sacrocolpopexy. © 2023 The AuthorsNote
Open access journalISSN
2666-5778Version
Final Published Versionae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100254
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license.

