A Novel Laparoscopic Apical Promontofixation Technique With Simultaneous Perineal Reconstruction for Patients With Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Riga East Clinical University Hospital

Status: Active, not recruiting

Conditions: Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP); Urinary Incontinence , Stress; Quality of Life; Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD); Urinary Incontinence (UI)

Treatments: Procedure: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.; Procedure: Laparoscopic apical promontofixation combined with simultaneous vaginal and perineal reconstruction using native tissues.

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT07271862

16-A/24

Details and patient eligibility

About

Pelvic organ prolapse in women is a common gynecological condition worldwide, with prevalence reported by different authors ranging from 15% to 50%. Up to 20% of women require surgical intervention during their lifetime due to genital prolapse or urinary incontinence. Surgical correction of prolapse provides an immediate effect by restoring the anatomical and physiological position of the pelvic organs, while also improving women's daily quality of life. Approximately 80-90% of women report satisfaction with the outcomes of prolapse surgery. However, there is still no global consensus regarding the optimal technique for performing colposacropexy. Multiple surgical approaches are currently in use, which prevents a definitive evaluation of the best method for surgical management of this condition. The classical laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy technique, while effective, does not eliminate the risk of mesh-related complications, particularly when synthetic implants are placed along the full length of the anterior and posterior vaginal walls.

Therefore, there is a strong rationale for developing a novel, simplified surgical approach for prolapse correction, derived from the original laparoscopic apical promontofixation, with simultaneous correction of cystocele and rectocele. This could potentially improve surgical outcomes for patients with pelvic organ prolapse while reducing the risk of complications associated with synthetic mesh implantation.

Full description

This is a prospective randomized study conducted at Riga East University Hospital (Latvia) and Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital (Latvia). Two groups of female patients will be compared. In the first group, patients will undergo laparoscopic reconstructive pelvic organ prolapse surgery using a polypropylene implant according to the 'classical' technique, involving fixation to the levator ani muscle and promontofixation. In the second group, patients will undergo a novel laparoscopic reconstructive pelvic organ prolapse procedure using a polypropylene implant based on a 'modified' technique, consisting of laparoscopic apical promontofixation combined with vaginal and perineal tissue repair using native tissues.

Group1 (Classical technique): Half of the patients will undergo laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using a polypropylene mesh implant fixed to the cervix and along the entire anterior vaginal wall up to the bladder neck, with additional fixation along the posterior vaginal wall and to the levator ani muscles, ensuring physiological tension by securing the implant proximally to the sacral promontory, precisely to the anterior longitudinal vertebral ligament. Separate intracorporeal nonabsorbable sutures will be placed 1.5-2.0 cm apart.

Group2 (Modified technique): Half of the patients will undergo laparoscopic apical promontofixation combined with simultaneous vaginal and perineal reconstruction using native tissues. The procedure includes placement of a polypropylene implant with distal fixation to the bilateral uterosacral ligaments (according to the MacCall technique) and to the cervix, as well as along the anterior vaginal wall up to the bladder neck, maintaining physiological tension, with proximal fixation to the sacral promontory, precisely to the anterior longitudinal vertebral ligament. A simultaneous colpoperineolevatoroplasty will also be performed. During the laparoscopic stage, separate intracorporeal nonabsorbable sutures will be placed 1.5-2.0 cm apart. During the vaginal stage, posterior colporrhaphy with simultaneous levatoroplasty for rectocele repair will be performed in patients with posterior vaginal wall prolapse or perineal defects.

The following parameters will be analyzed: frequency and severity of intraoperative and postoperative complications (early and late), duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, recurrence rate, sexual activity, quality of life before and after surgery, as well as anatomical and functional outcomes. Anatomical results will be evaluated according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System classification. Functional outcomes will be assessed using standardized questionnaires, including Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20, Female Sexual Function Index, and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire, in addition to urodynamic testing. Anatomical and functional results, quality of life, and sexual activity will be analyzed over a 6-month postoperative follow-up period.

Based on the study results, the novel laparoscopic apical promontofixation technique with simultaneous perineal repair using native tissues will be introduced into clinical practice in hospitals providing gynecological care. Furthermore, a new unified clinical protocol will be developed to facilitate practical application, including a simplified diagnostic algorithm based on 4-6 key symptoms, enabling family physicians and outpatient gynecologists to identify women with pelvic organ prolapse and refer them for specialist evaluation and appropriate treatment planning.

Additionally, a new objective method for assessing the degree of prolapse will be developed, allowing specialists to more accurately measure anterior, posterior, and central vaginal wall defects. This method will involve specific markings on a gynecological plastic speculum, enabling more precise evaluation of vaginal wall defects during routine gynecological examination. The new method will also be compared with other internationally recognized approaches for surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse.

Enrollment: 60 patients

Sex: Female

Ages: 30 to 80 years old

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

1. Female patients with symptomatic isolated or combined forms of pelvic organ prolapse, corresponding to stage II-IV according to the POP-Q classification.
2. Age between 30 and 80 years.
3. Presence or absence of urinary incontinence symptoms.
4. Preoperatively verified by urodynamics: occult, mild, or severe stress urinary incontinence, or absence thereof.
5. Presence or absence of proctogenic constipation.
6. No prior surgical interventions for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence.
7. History of supracervical hysterectomy.

Exclusion criteria

1. Severe extragenital pathology contraindicating surgical treatment.
2. Malignant pelvic pathology.
3. Asymptomatic patients.
4. Patient refusal to undergo subtotal hysterectomy.

Trial design

Primary purpose: Treatment

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Single Blind

---

60 participants in 2 patient groups

Classical technique

Active Comparator group

Description:

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Treatment:

Procedure: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Modified technique

Sham Comparator group

Description:

Laparoscopic apical promontofixation combined with simultaneous vaginal and perineal reconstruction using native tissues.

Treatment:

Procedure: Laparoscopic apical promontofixation combined with simultaneous vaginal and perineal reconstruction using native tissues.