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
[21]   Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse [J].
Turner, Lindsay C. ;
Lavelle, Erin S. ;
Shepherd, Jonathan P. .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2016, 27 (05) :797-803
[22]   Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Prolapse Hysterectomy with Apical Fixation: A Retrospective Comparison over an 18 Year Period [J].
Carlin, Greta Lisa ;
Lange, Soeren ;
Ziegler, Christina ;
Heinzl, Florian ;
Bodner-Adler, Barbara .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (06)
[23]   Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial [J].
Schulten, Sascha F. M. ;
Detollenaere, Renee J. ;
Stekelenburg, Jelle ;
IntHout, Joanna ;
Kluivers, Kirsten B. ;
van Eijndhoven, Hugo W. F. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 366
[24]   Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy versus hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched cohort study [J].
Milani, Rodolfo ;
Manodoro, Stefano ;
Cola, Alice ;
Bellante, Nicolo ;
Palmieri, Stefania ;
Frigerio, Matteo .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2020, 31 (09) :1867-1872
[25]   Recurrent apical prolapse after high uterosacral ligament suspension – in a heterogenous cohort characterised by a high prevalence of previous pelvic operations [J].
Katrine Dahl Pedersen ;
Marie Højriis Storkholm ;
Karl Møller Bek ;
Marianne Glavind-Kristensen ;
Susanne Greisen .
BMC Women's Health, 19
[26]   Recurrent apical prolapse after high uterosacral ligament suspension - in a heterogenous cohort characterised by a high prevalence of previous pelvic operations [J].
Pedersen, Katrine Dahl ;
Storkholm, Marie Hojriis ;
Bek, Karl Moller ;
Glavind-Kristensen, Marianne ;
Greisen, Susanne .
BMC WOMENS HEALTH, 2019, 19 (1)
[27]   Outcomes of Manchester procedure combined with high uterosacral ligament suspension for uterine prolapse [J].
Wang, Qi ;
Wu, Nengxiu ;
Li, Ying ;
Lin, Chaoqin ;
Xu, Ying ;
Chen, Xianjing .
JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2023, 49 (04) :1273-1282
[28]   Case report: Transvaginal single-port extraperitoneal laparoscopic sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical prolapse: A single-center case series [J].
Liu, Ye ;
Wang, Chao ;
Wang, Xianjing ;
Yan, Rongrong ;
Chu, Lei ;
Chen, Xinliang .
FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2023, 10
[29]   Vaginal Prolapse Recurrence After Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Normal-Weight Compared With Overweight and Obese Women [J].
Edenfield, Autumn L. ;
Amundsen, Cindy L. ;
Weidner, Alison C. ;
Wu, Jennifer M. ;
George, Amy ;
Siddiqui, Nazema Y. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 121 (03) :554-559
[30]   Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature [J].
Douligeris, Athanasios ;
Kathopoulis, Nikolaos ;
Zachariou, Eleftherios ;
Mortaki, Anastasia ;
Zacharakis, Dimitrios ;
Kypriotis, Konstantinos ;
Chatzipapas, Ioannis ;
Protopapas, Athanasios .
JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2024, 31 (06) :477-487