Comparison of the Effectiveness and Learning Curve of Laparoscopic Pectopexy Versus Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP), particularly apical prolapse, is a prevalent condition that significantly impairs the quality of life in aging women, with a global prevalence ranging from 20% to 65% among those over 50 years of age. It involves the downward displacement of the vaginal apex, uterus, or vaginal vault, and is frequently accompanied by urinary, bowel, and sexual dysfunction. Despite conservative measures, many women with symptomatic POP ultimately require surgical correction to restore pelvic anatomy and function.

Multiple surgical techniques have been developed for apical suspension, including transvaginal approaches (e.g., sacrospinous fixation, high uterosacral ligament suspension), transabdominal techniques, and laparoscopic modalities. Among laparoscopic approaches, sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has long been considered the gold standard due to its superior anatomical outcomes compared to native tissue repair or vaginal mesh-based procedures.

However, it demands advanced laparoscopic skills, has a steep learning curve, and carries a risk of complications such as presacral hemorrhage, mesh erosion, defecation dysfunction, and sacral osteomyelitis.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy involves dissection at the sacral promontory and mesh fixation to the anterior longitudinal ligament. Although it provides excellent long-term anatomical support-with reported objective success rates between 78% and 100%-it is associated with longer operative time and potential injuries to the ureter, bowel, or vessels. Furthermore, the anatomical challenges posed by the sacral promontory, especially in obese patients, can hinder operative safety and efficiency.

Laparoscopic pectopexy, first described by Banerjee and Noé in 2011, is an emerging alternative technique in which the mesh is bilaterally anchored to the iliopectineal (Cooper's) ligaments. This anterior fixation avoids dissection near critical retroperitoneal structures and preserves the posterior pelvic space, thereby reducing the risk of defecation disorders and nerve injury. Pectopexcy an emerging technique offers a potential alternative for apical prolapse repaire .this study aims to compare its efficacy &safety with conventional procedures.

Inclusion criteria

• Patients diagnosed with uterine prolapse with POP-Q stage ≥ III.
• Patients diagnosed with vault vaginal prolapse with POP-Q stage ≥ III.

Exclusion criteria

• Patients who refuse to participate in the study.
• Patients who have isolated anterior or posterior vaginal wall prolapse.
• Women who are pregnant or lactating.
• Patients with severe comorbidities, including: Serious heart, liver, kidney, or blood diseases or any condition preventing them from tolerating surgery.
• Women with a desire to conceive.