After 35 years of intensive professional life in the field of surgical gynecology and urogynecology, I feel very happy to have had the opportunity to live in a fascinating period of very quick evolution. In 1985, when we performed our first laparoscopic salpingectomy for an ectopic pregnancy, my old professor and mentor called us irresponsible, almost criminal. Two years later, in 1987, when I started as a consultant in his department, he called me to his office and told me to buy a video camera and to develop laparoscopic surgery that he thought to be the future. At that moment, everything was new and open, the instruments had to be designed, the techniques to be adapted from laparotomy. Laparoscopic surgery spread very quickly in France and Germany. We wanted to prove that every operation could be performed laparoscopically. And, of course, we went too far. Open surgery and vaginal surgery are in fact not competing techniques but complementary procedures with specific indications. Concerning POP repair, in the eighties, open SCP and vaginal techniques like colporrhaphy, fascial repair, sacrospinous ligament fixation were the rule. Open surgeons claimed their technique (born in the 50s) was the gold standard certainly thought that the main reason for vaginal surgery was that the surgeon was not able to perform SCP. Vaginal claimed their technique was less dangerous, site specific and not less efficient. In 1992–1993, three French gynecologists performed the first LSCP in order to combine the efficiency of mesh insertion, reinforcing the weak, distended native tissue, to the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopy. The idea was great and series started to be published in 2000–2001 with good results, similar to those of open approach. But the learning curve was rather long and LSCP didn’t spread very quickly and the long term results on anterior defect were not as good as expected. Furthermore, at the same time, at the end of the 90s, vaginal surgery moved quickly forwards with the beginning of vaginal mesh insertion. That was supposed to be the revenge of the “poor” vaginal surgeons. The combination of the effectiveness of native tissue reinforcement with mesh as in LSCP with the minimal invasiveness and the short learning curve of vaginal POP surgery. No more need to spent time on learning tough laparoscopic techniques. Here again, we went too quickly too far. Inappropriate and sometimes dangerous materials were commercialized. The learning curve of vaginal POP surgery especially with implants was largely underestimated. In 2010, the FDA gave a warning about vaginal mesh surgery and a lot of American companies left the market. Some surgeons went back to traditional vaginal surgery, back to the nineteenth century techniques. But many others knew that a mesh technique is needed in POP surgery, even if it isn’t for every patient. Most of urogynecologic surgeons know now that one technique cannot solve every clinical situation. Like always, evolution goes like a pendulum; it goes one direction but always too far. Then it goes back and there too, always too far. Vaginal and laparoscopic POP surgery have gone that way and I hope it will stabilize some day. “In medium stat virtus”, like always. My credo has always been to train as much as needed to be able to perform any surgery, vaginal and laparoscopic, and to indicate the approach according to the patient’s clinical status. Since the mid 90s, I perform 70% vaginal and 30% laparoscopic surgery for POP. And vaginal mesh surgery seems to have a strong indication, more and more proven by EBM, mainly for large cystoceles. LSCP is one of my favorite operations. It’s a very anatomical, bloodless dissection. Results are rather good, even 20 years later if the indication is correct. The learning curve is long but it’s worth investing time in a technique you can’t get away from if you want to be a modern urogynecologic surgeon.