Journal Health of Woman. 2025. 6(181): 101-108. doi: 10.15574/HW.2025.6(186).101108
Bondaruk V. P.¹, Karlova O. O.², Kryvoruk M. M.^2
1Kyiv City Center for Reproductive and Perinatal Medicine, Ukraine
²Shupyk National University of Healthcare of Ukraine, Kyiv

For citation: Bondaruk VP, Karlova OO, Kryvoruk MM. (2025). The role of multiparametric ultrasonography in verifying the status of mesh implants after surgical treatment of genital prolapse. Ukrainian Journal Health of Woman. 6(181): 101-108. doi: 10.15574/HW.2025.6(186).101108
Article received: Sep 30, 2025. Accepted for publication: Nov 20, 2025.

Genital prolapse (GP) remains a common pathology that significantly impairs the quality of life in women. Among modern surgical methods for correcting apical descent, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (SCP) and laparoscopic pectopexy (PP) hold leading positions. SCP is associated with certain risks, including damage to presacral vessels, chronic constipation, and osteomyelitis. Pectopexy serves as an innovative alternative involving the fixation of a mesh implant to the iliopectineal (pectineal) ligaments. This approach avoids the critical areas of the promontory and reduces the frequency of complications. Objective assessment of the mesh implant’s condition post-surgery using the traditional POP-Q clinical examination is limited, as it does not provide data regarding the position, integrity, tension, or interaction of the prosthesis with surrounding tissues. In this context, multiparametric ultrasonography (transperineal ultrasound with 3D/4D reconstruction) becomes crucial as a real-time imaging method, particularly during the Valsalva maneuver.
Aim – вased on clinical case analysis, to determine key ultrasound features of mesh implant positioning following reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
Based on the analysis of original clinical observations, key ultrasound criteria for the normal state of a mesh implant after laparoscopic PP were identified. These include: assessment of the distance from the lower edge of the mesh to the ureterovesical segment, and implant integrity – specifically the absence of twisting, fragmentation, or ruptures of the hyperechoic mesh line (in B-mode and 3D reconstruction). Postoperative follow-up intervals for patients were proposed, including re-examination at one week, one month, and six months after treatment.
Conclusions. Ultrasound criteria for the «normal» visualization of the postoperative state after PP have been established. The introduction of multiparametric ultrasound into the routine practice of postoperative monitoring of patients after laparoscopic PP will allow to improve the quality of dynamic control, timely detect subclinical complications and optimize patient management tactics.
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 participating institution. The informed consent of the patients was obtained for conducting the studies.
No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
Keywords: pectopexy, genital prolapse, ultrasonography, mesh implant, 3D/4D reconstruction.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Harthy MS, Al-Zidi IA. (2022). Clinical Application of 3D/4D Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Pelvic Floor Disorders: A Review Article. Journal of Medical Ultrasound. 30(3): 167-175. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmu.jmu_142_21; PMid:36484036 PMCid:PMC9724467

2. Banerjee C, Noé KG. (2011). Laparoscopic pectopexy: a new technique of progluteal mesh fixation for apical pelvic organ prolapse repair. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 284(1): 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1687-7; PMid:20941503

3. Bjelic-Radisic V, Dorfer M, Greimel E et al. (2020). Quality of life and sexual function after laparoscopic pectopexy. International Urogynecology Journal. 31(1): 115-121. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03914-y.

4. Dietz HP. (2015). Pelvic floor ultrasound in incontinence and prolapse. Abdominal Imaging. 40(6): 1665-1673. doi: 10.1007/s00261-015-0373-1.

5. Giarenis I, Robinson D, Cardozo L et al. (2015). Is there a role for pelvic floor ultrasound in the diagnosis of mid-urethral sling complications? International Urogynecology Journal. 26(8): 1187-1193. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2661-3.

6. Noé KG, Schiermeier S, Alkatout I, Anapolski M. (2015). Laparoscopic Pectopexy: A Prospective, Multicenter Comparative Study of Sacrocolpopexy vs Pectopexy. JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 19(3): e2014.00245. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2014.00245; PMid:25392624 PMCid:PMC4154414

7. Senturk S, Al-Wadly N, Sancak S et al. (2021). Mid-term results of laparoscopic pectopexy in the management of apical prolapse. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction. 50(4): 101890.

8. Tunn, R., Albrich, S., Beilecke, K., Gauruder-Burmester, A., Hamann, C., & Koelbl, H. (2012). Interdisciplinary consensus on pelvic floor ultrasound: diagnosis of mesh complications. International Urogynecology Journal, 23(10), 1335-1341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1845-8

9. Wong V, Shek KL, Goh J, Krause H, Dietz HP. (2017). Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: how low does the mesh go? Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 49(4): 531-535. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15882; PMid:26877210