Introduction and hypothesis: In the case of recurrent apical prolapse following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP), one may consider a "redo" procedure. We hypothesized that redo LSCP may carry an increased complication risk and less favorable outcomes when compared with primary procedures.
Methods: This is a single-center, matched case-control (1:4) study, comparing all 39 women who had a redo LSCP and 156 women who had a primary LSCP for symptomatic apical prolapse between 2002 and 2020 with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Matching was based on proximity to the operation date. The primary outcome was the occurrence of intraoperative and early postoperative complications within 3 months. Secondary outcomes included subjective (Patient Global Impression of Change [PGIC] ≥4) and objective (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification [POP-Q] stage <2) success rates, surgical variables, graft-related complications and reinterventions.
Results: There was no difference in the rate of intraoperative and early postoperative complications (redo: 21.1% vs control: 29.8%, OR: 0.63, 95% CI 0.27-1.48). The conversion rate was higher in redo patients (redo: 10.3% vs control: 0.6, OR: 17.71, 95% CI 1.92-163.39). Early postoperative complications were comparable: they were mainly infectious and managed by antibiotics. At a comparable follow-up (redo: 81 months (IQR: 54) vs control: 71.5 months (IQR: 42); p=0.37), there were no differences in graft-related complications (redo: 17.9% vs control: 9.6%, p=0.14) and reinterventions for complications (redo: 12.8% vs control: 5.1%, p=0.14) or prolapse (redo: 15.4% vs control: 8.3%, p=0.18). Subjective (redo: 88.5% vs control: 80.2%, p=0.41) and objective (redo: 31.8% vs control: 24.7%, p=0.50) success rates were also comparable.
Conclusions: In our experience, redo LSCP is as safe and effective as a primary LSCP, but there is a higher risk of conversion.
Keywords: Outcome; Pelvic organ prolapse; Redo; Sacrocolpopexy; Safety.
© 2023. The International Urogynecological Association.