[Mid-Term Efficacy Evaluation of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy vs Laparoscopic Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse].

Objective: To evaluate the perioperative safety and mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and laparoscopic pectopexy (LP) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 274 POP patients, including 178 who underwent LSC and 96 who underwent LP, between August 2017 and January 2023. The extent of prolapse and anatomical restoration were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Quality of life outcomes were evaluated with validated questionnaires, including Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-short form 7 (PFIQ-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12). Postoperative patient satisfaction was assessed during follow-ups. Postoperative anatomical restoration, perioperative status, and postoperative complications, recurrence, and quality of life were compared between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify postoperative risk factors for recurrence. Results: The operative time in the LSC group was significantly shorter than that in the LP group ( Conclusion: Mid-term outcomes of LP with partial cervical preservation appear inferior to those of LSC, with LSC demonstrating superior anatomical restoration and lower rates of anatomical recurrence. However, improvements in sexual function and quality of life are comparable between the two procedures. Further evaluation with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up is warranted to better characterize long-term outcomes.