Comparative assessment of postoperative recovery and complications after different surgical methods for the treatment of genital prolapse in women
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15574/HW.2026.1(182).2531Keywords:
genital prolapse, vaginal surgery, laparoscopy, pelvic surgery, recurrenceAbstract
Assessment of postoperative complications and the quality of recovery in women after surgical correction of genital prolapse is an important criterion for the implementation of multimodal, evidence-based protocols aimed at improving and accelerating postoperative rehabilitation.
Aim - to evaluate the quality of postoperative recovery and the frequency of complications after different surgical treatment options for genital prolapse in women to compare the effectiveness and safety of these methods.
Materials and methods. The following parameters were analyzed: duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss volume, intensity of postoperative pain, length of hospital stay, time and quality of postoperative recovery, complications, and recurrence rate in 389 women. Among them, 239 patients underwent vaginal surgery (Group I), and 150 women underwent laparoscopic surgical interventions (Group II). Postoperative recovery was assessed using the Quality of Recovery 15-item questionnaire (QoR-15). Statistical data processing was performed using SPSS 21 software.
Results. Laparoscopic surgical interventions for the correction of genital prolapse were associated with lower intraoperative blood loss volume, reduced pain intensity, and a shorter hospital stay, but were accompanied by a longer overall operation time. A significantly lower incidence of postoperative hematomas, vaginal mucosal erosions, dyspareunia, and disease recurrence was observed after laparoscopic surgical interventions compared to vaginal surgeries for the correction of genital prolapse in women.
Conclusions. Laparoscopic reconstruction for pelvic organ prolapse positively affects the quality of postoperative recovery in patients.
The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. The study protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the participating institutions. Informed consent was obtained from all patients.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Azadi A, Ulibarri H, Arroyo A, Gonzalez Herrera D, Hamilton B et al. (2025). Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 32(10): 877-888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2025.07.001; PMid:40617284
Barber MD. (2024). Measuring Pelvic Organ Prolapse: An Evolution. Int Urogynecol J. 35(5): 967-976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05798-0; PMid:38727752
Baryshnikova OP, Chaika KV, Tytarenko NV, Vozniuk AV, Rud VO. (2023). Quality of life as a criterion for the effectiveness of surgical treatment of genital prolapses combined with uterine leiomyoma. Ukrainian Journal of Perinatology and Pediatrics. 3(95): 49-54. https://doi.org/10.15574/PP.2023.95.49
Collins S, Lewicky-Gaupp C. (2022). Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 51(1): 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gtc.2021.10.011; PMid:35135661
Douligeris A, Kathopoulis N, Zachariou E, Mortaki A, Zacharakis D, Kypriotis K et al. (2024). Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 31(6): 477-487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2024.03.007; PMid:38493827
Geoffrion R, Larouche M. (2021). Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 43(4): 511-523.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.001; PMid:33548503
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. (2016). Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2(2): CD012079. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012079; PMid:26858090 PMCid:PMC6489145
Pitsillidi A, Protopapas A, Gkrozou F, Daniilidis A. (2025). Laparoscopic pectopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP): how, why, when: a narrative review of the literature. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 17(1): 30-38. https://doi.org/10.52054/FVVO.2024.13381; PMid:40297932 PMCid:PMC12042141
Pizzoferrato AC, Sallée C, Thubert T, Fauconnier A, Deffieux X. (2024). Value of pelvic examination in women with pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 167(2): 573-597. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15697; PMid:38778697
Pizzoferrato AC, Thuillier C, Vénara A, Bornsztein N, Bouquet S, Cayrac M et al. (2023). Management of female pelvic organ prolapse-Summary of the 2021 HAS guidelines. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 52(3): 102535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102535; PMid:36657614
Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. (2013). Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology. 118(6): 1332-1340. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289b84b; PMid:23411725
Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D et al. (2005). Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 192(3): 795-806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.602; PMid:15746674
Tunn R, Baessler K, Knüpfer S, Hampel C. (2023). Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 120(5): 71-80. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0406
Tvarožek S, Szypulová M, Šteflová A, Huser M, Rušavý Z. (2025). Sexual function in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Ceska Gynekol. 90(1): 64-70. https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg202564; PMid:40117261
Weintraub AY, Glinter H, Marcus-Braun N. (2020). Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Braz J Urol. 46(1): 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0581; PMid:31851453 PMCid:PMC6968909
Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Funk MJ. (2014). Lifetime risk of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 25(11): 1559-1566.
Zhuk SI, Budchenko EA. (2018). Prophylaxis of genital prolapse in women in the late postpartum period. Health of woman. 3 (129): 31-33. https://doi.org/10.15574/HW.2018.129.31
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ukrainian Journal Health of Woman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The policy of the Journal UKRAINIAN JOURNAL «HEALTH OF WOMAN» is compatible with the vast majority of funders' of open access and self-archiving policies. The journal provides immediate open access route being convinced that everyone – not only scientists - can benefit from research results, and publishes articles exclusively under open access distribution, with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 international license (СС BY-NC).
Authors transfer the copyright to the Journal UKRAINIAN JOURNAL «HEALTH OF WOMAN» when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Authors declare that this manuscript has not been published nor is under simultaneous consideration for publication elsewhere. After publication, the articles become freely available on-line to the public.
Readers have the right to use, distribute, and reproduce articles in any medium, provided the articles and the journal are properly cited.
The use of published materials for commercial purposes is strongly prohibited.
