Posterior mesh fixation versus non-fixation in sacrocolpopexy: A randomized clinical trial.

Guglielmo Stabile, Maurizio Guido, Matteo Bruno, Jasmine Di Biasi, Stefania Ruggieri, Chiara Taccaliti, Michela Ciocca, Christian Di Florio, Paola Catana

Journal: European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 2025;309():1-6

PMID: 40088520

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Urogenital prolapse affects up to 50% of women, and its treatment is essential for improving quality of life. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is considered the gold standard, but there is no consensus on the optimal surgical approach. This study tests the hypothesis that the absence of posterior mesh fixation is non-inferior to its fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, single-blinded, monocentric, non-inferiority trial in Italy (NCT04358978). In Group A, the posterior mesh was placed without fixation, while in Group B, it was fixed to the rectovaginal fascia and levator ani muscle. The primary outcome was the correction of prolapse, with secondary outcomes including intraoperative parameters, postoperative characteristics, and urogenital prolapse correction at 1, 6 and 12, months, as well as long-term morbidity.

RESULTS

120 women were randomized into two groups with no significant differences. At 12 months, both groups reported no bulge symptoms, and pelvic pain was 3,3 %. Urinary dysfunction decreased in both groups, with a reduction in de novo incontinence (Group A: 1.6 %, Group B: 3.3 %) and persistent incontinence (Group A: 0 %, Group B: 7 %). Persistent constipation at 12 months was 3.3 % in Group A and 13 % in Group B. No cases of obstructed defecation or mesh erosion were observed. Five cases of failure (8.3 %) were reported in both groups, defined as Ba point reaching the hymen.

CONCLUSIONS

The absence of posterior mesh fixation is non-inferior to fixation in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in terms of treatment success and postoperative complications.

Copyright © 2025. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Address: Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy; DFSSN Department, Department of Pharmacy and Health and Nutrition Sciences, University of Calabria, Calabria, Italy.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospedale Lorenzo Bonomo, Andria 76123, Italy.; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Civitanova Marche Hospital, Civitanova Marche 62012, Italy.; Department of Biotechnological and Applied Clinical Sciences, University of L'Aquila 67100 L'Aquila, Italy.; ASL Teramo UOC Ostetricia e Ginecologia, Italy.; Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Foggia 71122 Foggia, Italy.; ASL 1 Abruzzo UOC Ostetricia e Ginecologia, Italy.; Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario 'Agostino Gemelli' IRCCS, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: [email protected].; Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy; DFSSN Department, Department of Pharmacy and Health and Nutrition Sciences, University of Calabria, Calabria, Italy.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.