title: Minilaparoscopic Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Comparative Study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We aim to compare clinical and surgical outcomes between minilaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (MLSC) and conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). As far as we know, no comparative study exists between these two minimal invasive procedures to correct vaginal prolapse.
  
  
  METHODS
  An observational and comparative study with 20 individuals submitted to vaginal vault prolapse correction between June and December of 2014 in our tertiary referral unit. Nine women were submitted to 3-mm MLSC and the others were approached by a standard 5-mm laparoscopic technique.
  
  
  METHODS
  Women's demographic data and prolapse grade were evaluated preoperatively using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification score. Operative parameters (surgical time, blood loss, and complications under Satava and Clavien-Dindo classification) and length of hospitalization were also compared. Postoperative pain and surgical scar satisfaction were measured using Visual Analog Pain Scale and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Questionnaire, respectively.
  
  
  RESULTS
  MLSC took approximately the same time as LSC (P > .05). No significant differences in operative time, blood loss, length of hospitalization, and complications (Satava, Clavien-Dindo) were observed between both groups. Pain score after surgery was similar in MLSC and LSC (P > .05). Surgical scar monitoring at 3 months established that MLSC produced better overall results than LSC (P < .05). Anatomic cure rate was 100%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Minilaparoscopy is a feasible and attractive approach for sacrocolpopexy as it enhances cosmetics, keeping the low morbidity associated with the classical laparoscopic approaches.
authors: 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centro Hospitalar do Porto , Porto, Portugal .|2 Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho , Braga, Portugal .|3 ICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory , Braga, Guimarães, Portugal .
authors: Hélder
authors: H
authors: Ferreira
authors: 4 Department of Urology, Hospital Pedro Hispano , Matosinhos, Portugal .
authors: Carlos
authors: C
authors: Ferreira
authors: 2 Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho , Braga, Portugal .|3 ICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory , Braga, Guimarães, Portugal .|5 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital de Braga , Braga, Portugal .
authors: Cristina
authors: C
authors: Nogueira-Silva
authors: 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centro Hospitalar do Porto , Porto, Portugal .
authors: Antonio
authors: A
authors: Tomé
authors: 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centro Hospitalar do Porto , Porto, Portugal .
authors: Serafim
authors: S
authors: Guimarães
authors: 2 Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho , Braga, Portugal .|3 ICVS/3B's - PT Government Associate Laboratory , Braga, Guimarães, Portugal .|6 Department of Pediatric Surgery, Hospital de Braga , Braga, Portugal .
authors: Jorge
authors: J
authors: Correia-Pinto
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D008866:Microsurgery / Q000379:methods*; D008875:Middle Aged; D061646:Operative Time; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014596:Uterine Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*