Sacrospinous fixation versus uterosacral ligament suspension in managing apical prolapse

被引:0
|
作者
McDonald, Jodie [1 ]
Salehi, Omar [1 ]
Sathianathen, Niranjan [1 ]
Dowling, Caroline [2 ]
Elmer, Sandra [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Urol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Eastern Hlth Clin Sch, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Epworth Med Fdn, Dept Surg, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
Apical pelvic organ prolapse; Surgical; Robotic; Transvaginal; Mesh-free; VAULT SUSPENSION; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1007/s00345-025-05563-y
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose To compare and assess the safety of two mesh-free surgical techniques in managing apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP); robot assisted/laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF). Methods We performed a retrospective review of 116 women with apical POP who underwent USLS (n = 61) or SSLF (n = 55) by a single surgeon. Demographic data including age, parity, previous POP surgery was recorded. A pre-operative pelvic floor questionnaire was used to identify prevalence of bladder, bowel and vaginal symptoms. POP Quantification system (POP-Q) scores were recorded at surgery and at post-operative reviews. The absolute change in POP-Q scores were recorded as objective measures of pelvic floor support. Other post-operative metrics used include the presence of vaginal bulge, need for repeat POP surgery (re-operation) and subjective improvement in symptoms based on a patient-reported outcome measures survey. Post-operative adverse events were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo grading scale. Multivariable logistical regression analysis was performed to predict factors for failure, re-operation and adverse events. Results Baseline demographics were similar. Mean post-operative follow-up time was 24 months (USLS) and 18.5 months (SSLF). The difference in post-operative C point was not significant (USLS: median - 8 (IQR 2), SSLF: median - 7 cm (IQR 2)). Procedure success rates (post-operative C point < 0) were not different (USLS 90.2%, SSLF 92.5%). Re-operation rates for apical recurrence were similar between groups (SSLF 1.9%, USLS 6.6%). Univariate analysis for re-operation found that age, parity, and surgery type were not predictors of re-operation. The most common post-operative adverse event was urinary tract infection (USLS 10.2%, SSLF 10.5%). Conclusion Robot assisted/laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation are safe and effective mesh-free techniques for management of apical pelvic organ prolapse based on objective improvements in POP-Q score and patient-reported outcome measures.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Uterosacral Ligament Suspension Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Treatment of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse
    Smith, Benjamin C.
    Crisp, Catrina C.
    Kleeman, Steven D.
    Yook, Eunsun
    Pauls, Rachel N.
    FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2019, 25 (02): : 93 - 98
  • [2] Clinical Effect of Uterosacral and Cardinal Ligament Fixation versus Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis
    Huang, Ling-xiao
    Guo, Min
    Sha, Li-xiao
    Chen, Cong
    Lin, Xiao-hua
    Dong, Xiao-xia
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2023, 2023
  • [3] Bilateral Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation With Vaginal Hysterectomy for Apical Uterovaginal Prolapse
    Wang, Kaiyue
    Shi, Lijuan
    Huang, Zheren
    Xu, Yun
    INTERNATIONAL NEUROUROLOGY JOURNAL, 2022, 26 (03) : 239 - 247
  • [4] Comparing the Long-Term Outcome of Uterosacral and Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension Surgeries in Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse
    Sukgen, Gokmen
    Kaya, Aski Ellibes
    KONURALP TIP DERGISI, 2018, 10 (03): : 381 - 386
  • [5] Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation vs Uterosacral Ligaments Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Chen, Yuanzhuo
    Peng, Liao
    Zhang, Jie
    Shen, Hong
    Luo, Deyi
    UROLOGY, 2022, 166 : 133 - 139
  • [6] Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for apical compartment prolapse
    Aharoni, Saar
    Matanes, Emad
    Lauterbach, Roy
    Mor, Omer
    Weiner, Zeev
    Lowenstein, Lior
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2021, 260 : 203 - 207
  • [7] Technique of extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension for apical suspension
    Lin L. Ow
    Caroline E. Walsh
    Natarajan Rajamaheswari
    Peter L. Dwyer
    International Urogynecology Journal, 2016, 27 : 637 - 639
  • [8] Technique of extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension for apical suspension
    Ow, Lin L.
    Walsh, Caroline E.
    Rajamaheswari, Natarajan
    Dwyer, Peter L.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2016, 27 (04) : 637 - 639
  • [9] A Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes, Readmission, and Reoperation for Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation, Uterosacral Ligament Suspension, and Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy
    Yadav, Ghanshyam S.
    Gaddam, Neha
    Rahn, David D.
    FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2021, 27 (03): : 133 - 139
  • [10] vNOTES versus Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Perioperative and Short-Term Outcomes
    Morganstein, Taylor
    Gangal, Mihnea
    Belzile, Eric
    Sohaei, Dorsa
    Bentaleb, Jouhayna
    Reuveni-Salzman, Adi
    Merovitz, Lisa
    Walter, Jens-Erik
    Larouche, Maryse
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2024, 35 (09) : 1899 - 1908