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
[31]   Comparison of 2-year follow-up outcomes of laparoscopic lateral suspension and sacrospinous fixation in apical compartment prolapse: an observational study [J].
Baki Erin, Kubra ;
Tastan, Ayse Seyma ;
Katirci, Yunus ;
Ozdemir, Ayse Zehra ;
Guven, Davut ;
Onem, Kadir ;
Onal, Mesut ;
Erin, Recep ;
Kulaksiz, Deniz .
ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2023, 307 (06) :1859-1865
[32]   Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage [J].
Lavelle, Erin Seifert ;
Giugale, Lauren E. ;
Winger, Daniel G. ;
Wang, Li ;
Carter-Brooks, Charelle M. ;
Shepherd, Jonathan P. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 218 (01) :116.e1-116.e5
[33]   Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial [J].
Detollenaere, Renee J. ;
den Boon, Jan ;
Stekelenburg, Jelle ;
IntHout, Joanna ;
Vierhout, Mark E. ;
Kluivers, Kirsten B. ;
van Eijndhoven, Hugo W. F. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2015, 351
[34]   Ureteral Compromise in Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension A Retrospective Cohort [J].
Barbier, Heather M. ;
Smith, Margo Z. ;
Eto, Chidimma U. ;
Welgoss, Jeffrey A. ;
Von Pechmann, Walter ;
Horbach, Nicolette ;
Gruber, Daniel D. .
Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, 2015, 21 (06) :363-368
[35]   Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial [J].
Nager, Charles W. ;
Visco, Anthony G. ;
Richter, Holly E. ;
Rardin, Charles R. ;
Komesu, Yuko ;
Harvie, Heidi S. ;
Zyczynski, Halina M. ;
Paraiso, Marie Fidela R. ;
Mazloomdoost, Donna ;
Sridhar, Amaanti ;
Thomas, Sonia .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 225 (02)
[36]   The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication [J].
de Boer, Tiny A. ;
Milani, Alfredo L. ;
Kluivers, Kirsten B. ;
Withagen, Mariella I. J. ;
Vierhout, Mark E. .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2009, 20 (11) :1313-1319
[37]   Minimally Invasive Sacrohysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial [J].
Hwang, Woo Yeon ;
Jeon, Myung Jae ;
Suh, Dong Hoon .
JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2024, 31 (05) :406-413
[38]   Abdominal sacral colpopexy versus sacrospinous ligament fixation: a cost-effectiveness analysis [J].
Ohno, Mika S. ;
Richardson, Monica L. ;
Sokol, Eric R. .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2016, 27 (02) :233-237
[39]   Mesh-Free Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension during Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Uterine Prolapse [J].
Jan, Haider ;
Ghai, Vishalli ;
Doumouchtsis, Stergios K. .
JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 25 (06) :952-953
[40]   Outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation with conventional instruments in the treatment of Stage 3-4 vaginal vault prolapse [J].
Sahin, Hanifi ;
Yalcin, Ibrahim ;
Sahin, Eda Adeviye ;
Sari, Mustafa Erkan ;
Ayhan, Ali .
CUKUROVA MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 44 (02) :549-555