Function, quality-of-life and complications after sacrospinous ligament fixation using an antegrade reusable suturing device (ARSD-Ney) at 6 and 12 months: a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

As an increase in the elderly population is expected over the coming years, pelvic organ prolapse will also become more prevalent. When conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment is a feasible option. Sacrocolpopexy is currently considered the gold standard for treatment of advanced apical prolapse; and while it offers a durable repair of the vaginal apex, it carries the increased risk of mesh complications compared with native tissue repairs (1). Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) has also gained clinical importance as a traditional transvaginal procedure. Sederl et al. (2) first utilized the sacrospinous ligament as a secure point of attachment for patients with vaginal vault and uterine prolapse as early as 1958, and SSLF was originally described by Richter (3). Despite its benefits, traditional SSLF also creates several problems, including inconvenience and high surgical risk.

In 2010, to simplify the procedure, Neymeyer carried out a high vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation (h-SSLF) using an antegrade reusable suturing device, the SERAPRO^® ARSD-Ney (SERAG WIESSNER, Naila, Germany) (Figure 1), developed at the Charité University, Berlin, which can operate blindly with guidance of the fingers and enables an elevation above the distantia sacropubica of around 16–25 mm with an elevation angle of the vagina (EAV) of β=33±3° (4,5). Dr. Fangrong Shen popularized the technology in China in 2018, which led to this study. This device enables the surgeon to perform surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with no mesh implants.

Figure 1 The antegrade reusable suturing device SERAPRO^® ARSD (Source: Ein Produkt von SERAG-WIESSNER).

Pelvic health should be defined both as no prolapse and proper function, including urine and stool continence and sexual function (6). Previous studies on h-SSLF have focused primarily on the correction of anatomical positions. Indeed, patients with great anatomic outcomes can remain dissatisfied with the surgical cure. It is important to measure quality of life in women with POP when evaluating the efficacy of the surgical procedure. Considering that few studies have reported on the quality of life and sexuality after h-SSLF, we aimed to evaluate functional changes in these factors in Chinese women who underwent h-SSLF. We present the following article in accordance with the STROBE reporting checklist (available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-22-2150/rc).

Methods

Subjects

This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 71 patients with POP requiring surgery who were admitted and treated in The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from January 2018 to January 2021 were included in this study. Women who presented with gynecological malignancy or serious medical and surgical diseases were excluded. We did not exclude women undergoing a concurrent procedure, including hysterectomy or anti-incontinence sling. Pre- and post-operative physical examinations were performed in the supine position with the Valsalva maneuver test. Genital prolapse was evaluated according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) landmarks system (7). Recurrence was considered when assessment exceeded stage 1 at any point of measure at 6 or 12 months after surgery. All the surgeries were performed by one experienced gynecologist (F Shen) in our department.

The outstanding functional and anatomical results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) were confirmed by Wagner et al. in a long-term follow-up prospective study (8); for this reason, LSC was selected as the control operation. Surgery was determined according to patient age and background, POP-Q stage, patient preference, and so on. As a result, 50 patients underwent h-SSLF and 21 patients underwent LSC. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Board of the Soochow University School of Medicine (No. 2020-276). As it was a retrospective study and patients’ names were not divulged, informed consent was waived.

Patients’ assessment

Patient characteristics and pre- and post-operative data including age, parity, body mass index (BMI), menopausal status, and surgical details such as operative time, blood loss, postoperative indwelling catheter time, hospital stays, and complications are shown in Table 1.

A standard clinical evaluation by the operating surgeon was conducted before surgery and repeated at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, during each medical follow-up visit. The Short Form Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) was administered preoperatively to assess the distress of the symptoms of PFD; it consisted of 3 subscales: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI), Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI), and Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI) which assessed POP, anorectal, and urinary symptoms, respectively (9). The Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7) was designed to assess life impact in women with pelvic floor disorders and, similar to the PFDI-20, contains all of the items included in the original Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ) as well as items related to other pelvic floor disorders. It has been confirmed that PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 are complementary questionnaires (10) that have been shown to be psychometrically valid and reliable (9). Clinicians and researchers usually use them together, so PFIQ-7 was also used preoperatively, and at 6 and 12 months after surgery. The higher the obtained scores, the greater the impact on patients’ quality of life. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12) was used to estimate sexual function; higher scores indicated better function.

Surgical technique

The cases receiving LSC underwent surgery in the lithotomy position under general anesthesia. The vaginal bladder space and the vaginal rectal space were separated, the appropriate size of the anterior and posterior lobe mesh was cut; the anterior lobe mesh was placed in the vaginal bladder space and the posterior lobe mesh in the vaginal rectal space. The anterior lobe mesh was fixed to the anterior vaginal wall with sutures at the level of the bladder. The posterior lobe mesh was sutured to the posterior vaginal wall and then the vaginal incision was closed. As the sacral promontory was exposed laparoscopically, the upper end of the posterior lobe mesh was sutured with a 0/2 non-absorbable suture and fixed to the anterior sacral ligament, at which point the mesh was tension-free.

The cases receiving h-SSLF also underwent surgery in the lithotomy position under general anesthesia. Firstly, the reusable suturing device (ARSD-Ney) was mounted on the right index finger and introduced into the vaginal cavity. Subsequently, the right ischial spine and the sacrospinous ligament (SSL) were palpated through the vaginal wall. Then the index finger was stabilized intimately to the upper SSL as close as possible to the sacrum, which is approximately at the S3 level. The anchor was deployed, and adequate pull-out force was tested. A 1 cm longitudinal shallow and high mucosal incision was made at the posterior vaginal wall. The anchor’s suture was mounted on a virgin needle and inserted backwards through the vaginal wall at its point of entrance, passed under the vaginal wall, then through the cervical isthmus and out to the vaginal cavity again through the posterior colpotomy. Finally, the small posterior vaginal incision was closed.

Statistical analysis

The baseline characteristics, surgical details, complications, and recurrence of the patients were recorded as mean ± SD or percentages. The between-group differences were compared by independent-samples t-test. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for within-group differences. The chi-squared test was used to test for between-group differences in preoperative and postoperative outcomes. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All data were analyzed with SPSS 21.0 software (SPSS, Inc., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Demographic characteristics

The follow-up period was the 6 and 12 months after the procedure. The mean age in group h-SSLF and group LSC was 62.64±9.63 and 59.00±11.07 years, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups with respect to age, parity, BMI, menopausal age, POP‑Q stage, blood loss, and complications. The 2 groups were similar in terms of their demographic characteristics (Table 1). However, there were significant differences when comparing group h-SSLF with group LSC in surgery time (86.04±28.70 vs. 153.19±54.88, P<0.05), postoperative indwelling catheter time (3.88±1.65 vs. 4.90±1.84, P<0.05), and hospital stay (8.94±2.38 vs. 10.57±2.06, P<0.05). Meanwhile, buttock pain (10%) and urinary incontinence (UI; 12%) were prominent complications in the h-SSLF group.

Quality of life scores

Table 2 shows the changes of the PFIQ-7 scores preoperatively and at postoperative 6 and 12 months between the 2 groups. In group h-SSLF (n=50), the mean pre- and post-operative 6 and 12 months scores were 19.70±6.91, 2.32±2.92, and 1.72±2.40, respectively. In group LSC (n=21), the means of the 3 scores were 19.71±8.11, 1.19±2.11, and 2.38±3.79, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in both groups between 6- and 12 months after surgery. There were also no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups as to scores at preoperative measurement and postoperative 6 and 12 months. Meanwhile, scores for both group h-SSLF and LSC decreased significantly at 6 and 12 months postoperatively compared to preoperative: P1 and P2<0.05 in both groups. The P1 indicates the P value between preoperative and postoperative (6-month) while P2 indicates the P value between preoperative and postoperative (12-month).

According to the PFDI-20 questionnaire in Table 3, we recorded scores of POPDI-6, CRADI-8, UDI-6, and total score, respectively. The preoperative and postoperative scores of PFDI-20 in both groups showed statistical significance (P<0.05) except for those of CRADI-8. The differences between the 2 groups were not statistically significant when comparing the preoperative, and 6- and 12-month postoperative categorical items.

The mean preoperative and postoperative 6 and 12 months scores on the PISQ-12 questionnaire (Table 4), evaluating the impact of POP on sexual life, were 29.74±8.56, 35.37±7.43, and 39.21±5.35 in group h-SSLF (n=19), respectively, and 26.93±7.01, 36.36±4.34 and 38.29±5.55 in group LSC (n=14). As to the handling of missing data, we didn’t count them in our study. In group h-SSLF, there was no significant difference between pre- and postoperative 6 months, while there was a greater difference between pre- and postoperative 12 months, and postoperative 6 and 12 months. Unlike group h-SSLF, group LSC showed significant differences between pre- and postoperative 6 months, pre- and postoperative 12 months, but not for postoperative 6 and 12 months. Significant improvements were seen among the 33 sexually active women. Absence of sexual activity was owing to partner absence or partner-related pathology.

Discussion

In the present study, group h-SSLF shared similar recurrence rate and scores of PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, and PISQ-12 to those of group LSC. Functional pelvic problems (PFDI-20 scores) and their impact on patients’ quality of life (PFIQ-7 scores) significantly improved at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Improvement regarding sexual activity was significant at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. As the excellent functional results and quality-of-life of LSC for POP have been reported widely (8,11,12), and there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in these areas in our study, the improvement in functional results and quality of life at 12 months were effectively supported. Okcu et al. (13) identified no significant difference among their 2 groups in terms of POPDI-6, UDI-6, CRADI-8, and PISQ-12 scores, which are in line with our study results.

The comparison of results between the patients who underwent h-SSLF and LSC, in addition to surgery time, postoperative indwelling catheter time, and hospital stay, did not reflect significant differences in terms of baseline variables or surgical details. The data in Table 1 clearly show that group h-SSLF had shorter surgery time, postoperative indwelling catheter time, and hospital stay than group LSC, which led to less risk of infection and lower medical costs. Ohno et al. (14) considered SSLF as a cost-effective surgery in their study.

Complications such as buttock pain, dyspareunia, de novo UI, and de novo defecatory disturbances rates were also comparable between the 2 procedural groups. Although suture placement is not recommended in the medial third of the sacrospinous ligament, as the S4 root is most commonly present there (15,16), this may easily result in nerve damage in the form of buttock pain. While Table 1 shows no significant difference in buttock pain between group h-SSLF and LSC (10% vs. 4.76%, P>0.05), there was a significant improvement in buttock pain, which was at 10% a few days after surgery, and dropped to 0 at 6 months and 12 months postoperatively. Feiner et al. (17) reported 1 case of persisting thigh pain, which gradually settled by 12 months. The studies mentioned above had results similar to ours. Buttock pain can be explained by injury to nerves surrounding the sacral plexus and branches of the pudendal nerve.

Urinary symptoms were improved for all the h-SSLF group cases according to the UDI-6, and Table 1 shows less postoperative indwelling catheter time than group LSC. These 6 patients with de novo UI represented 12% of the population in group h-SSLF, and UI was one of the leading long-term complications of sacrospinous ligament fixation in this study. The risk of postoperative UI after surgery for pelvic floor prolapse has been mentioned previously. Perez et al. (11) reported 6.3% of de novo SUI after LSC at 12 months, while in the study of Claerhout et al. (18), the rate of de novo UI was 7.3%. These surgeries could have involved concomitant anti-incontinence slings. In such cases, patients should be made aware of the risk and benefits of this surgery. Indeed, patients should be informed about the potential risk of postoperative UI in advance when no concomitant incontinence procedure is performed.

The study of Salman et al. (19) reported that no rectal injury occurred intraoperatively, which is consistent with our results. The data regarding functional outcome for the bowel (CRADI-8 scores) after h-SSLF and LSC showed hardly any improvement for most patients. However, on the one hand, there were only a few patients with mild rectal problems before surgery; and on the other hand, there were no new rectal problems postoperatively.

Despite the relatively small number of sexually active women, sexuality improved in most of our patients who completed the PISQ-12 questionnaire, whether in group h-SSLF or group LSC. It has previously been concluded in many studies that sexual function is significantly improved after prolapse surgery (20,21). Nevertheless, 2 sexually active women reported a negative change in the quality of their sex life after h-SSLF, which was probably owing to surgical wounds or psychological factors.

To our knowledge, there was few previously documented studies evaluating the functional results and quality-of-life after h-SSLF and comparing the 2 surgical methods. Consequently, these evaluations can be regarded as strengths of the current study. However, the fact that this study was not a randomized controlled trial, existence of systematic bias and contained a limited number of cases can be considered as study limitations. In the next study we will include more patients as time goes on to refine our research. Based on traditional SSLF, h-SSLF simplifies surgical procedures and provides a shorter learning cycle for gynecologists, as well as similar surgical outcomes and quality of life in follow-up to LSC.

Conclusions

This retrospective cohort study confirmed the excellent results of h-SSLF using ARSD-Ney in terms of improvement in function and quality of life following treatment for POP. The early onset improvement remained stable during the first postoperative year, and further research is required to investigate its long-term efficacy. The above data further support h-SSLF as an effective surgical technique for POP.

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Med Joerg Neymeyer (Department of Urology, Charitè University, Berlin).

Funding: This work was supported by The Project of Jiangsu Provincial Maternal and Child Health Association (No. F201917).

Footnote

Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the STROBE reporting checklist. Available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-22-2150/rc

Data Sharing Statement: Available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-22-2150/dss

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://atm.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/atm-22-2150/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Board of the Soochow University School of Medicine (No. 2020-276). As it was a retrospective study and patients’ names were not divulged, informed consent was waived.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Hill AJ, Barber MD. Apical prolapse repair: weighing the risks and benefits. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015;27:373-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
2. Sederl J. Surgery in prolapse of a blind-end vagina. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1958;18:824-8. [PubMed]
3. Richter K. The surgical anatomy of the vaginaefixatio sacrospinalis vaginalis. A contribution to the surgical treatment of vaginal blind pouch prolapse. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 1968;28:321-7. [PubMed]
4. Neymeyer J, Moldovan DE, Weinberger S, et al. Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen – bewährte offen-operative Verfahren zur Behandlung des Urogenitalprolaps. Der Urologe 2019;58:617-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Neymeyer J, Moldovan DE, Kornienko K, et al. Implants for genital prolapse: Pro mesh surgery. Urologe A 2017;56:1576-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Rechberger E, Skorupska K, Rechberger T, et al. The Influence of Vaginal Native Tissues Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery in Patients with Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse on Preexisting Storage Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS). J Clin Med 2020;9:829. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Persu C, Chapple CR, Cauni V, et al. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) - a new era in pelvic prolapse staging. J Med Life 2011;4:75-81. [PubMed]
8. Wagner L, Chevrot A, Llinares E, et al. Long-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a prospective study. Int Urol Nephrol 2019;51:795-802. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;193:103-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
10. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, et al. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:1388-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Perez T, Crochet P, Descargues G, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for management of pelvic organ prolapse enhances quality of life at one year: a prospective observational study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:747-54. [Crossref] [PubMed]
12. Thibault F, Costa P, Thanigasalam R, et al. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on symptoms, health-related quality of life and sexuality: a medium-term analysis. BJU Int 2013;112:1143-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
13. Okcu NT, Gurbuz T, Uysal G. Comparison of patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation, laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy and abdominal hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy in terms of postoperative quality of life and sexual function. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2021;50:101977. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Ohno MS, Richardson ML, Sokol ER. Abdominal sacral colpopexy versus sacrospinous ligament fixation: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2016;27:233-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Katrikh AZ, Ettarh R, Kahn MA. Cadaveric Nerve and Artery Proximity to Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Sutures Placed by a Suture-Capturing Device. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:1033-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. Florian-Rodriguez ME, Hare A, et al. Inferior gluteal and other nerves associated with sacrospinous ligament: a cadaver study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:646.e1-646.e6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Feiner B, Gietelink L, Maher C. Anterior vaginal mesh sacrospinous hysteropexy and posterior fascial plication for anterior compartment dominated uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2010;21:203-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, et al. Medium-term anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy beyond the learning curve. Eur Urol 2009;55:1459-67. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. Salman S, Babaoglu B, Kumbasar S, et al. Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using Minimally Invasive Anchorage. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2019;79:976-82. [Crossref] [PubMed]
20. Yalcin Y, Demir Caltekin M, Eris Yalcin S. Quality of life and sexuality after bilateral sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy for treatment of primary pelvic organ prolapse. Low Urin Tract Symptoms 2020;12:206-10. [Crossref] [PubMed]
21. Detollenaere RJ, Kreuwel IAM, Dijkstra JR, et al. The Impact of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy and Vaginal Hysterectomy With Suspension of the Uterosacral Ligaments on Sexual Function in Women With Uterine Prolapse: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Comparative Study. J Sex Med 2016;13:213-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]

(English Language Editor: J. Jones)