Ukrainian Journal Health of Woman. 2026. 1(182): 25-31. doi: 10.15574/HW.2026.1(182).2531
Kaminskyy V. V.¹, Bondaruk V. P.², Protsepko O. O.³, Shamrai V. A.³, Mazur G. M.³, Bevz G. V.^3
1Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Kyiv
²MNCE «Kyiv City Center for Reproductive and Perinatal Medicine», Ukraine
³National Pirogov Memorial Medical University, Vinnytsia, Ukraine

For citation: Kaminskyy VV, Bondaruk VP, Protsepko OO, Shamrai VA, Mazur GM, Bevz GV. (2026). Comparative assessment of postoperative recovery and complications after different surgical methods for the treatment of genital prolapse in women. Ukrainian Journal Health of Woman. 1(182): 25-31. doi: 10.15574/HW.2026.1(182).2531
Article received: Nov 28, 2025. Accepted for publication: Jan 28, 2026.

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.
Keywords: genital prolapse, vaginal surgery, laparoscopy, pelvic surgery, recurrence.

REFERENCES

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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