Anterior approach sacrospinous hysteropexy: native tissue compared with mesh-augmented repair for primary uterovaginal prolapse management

被引:3
作者
Overholt, Tyler L. [1 ]
Velet, Liliya [1 ]
Xu, Mark [1 ]
Dutta, Rahul [1 ]
Matthews, Catherine A. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Atrium Hlth Wake Forest Baptist, Dept Urol, Winston Salem, NC 27157 USA
[2] Atrium Hlth Wake Forest Baptist, Div Female Pelv Med, 1 Med Ctr Blvd, Winston Salem, NC 27157 USA
关键词
Uterovaginal prolapse; sacrospinous hysteropexy; transvaginal repair; VAGINAL HYSTERECTOMY; CLASSIFICATION; SUSPENSION; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1007/s00192-023-05589-z
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Introduction and hypothesisAnterior sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) was popularized by transvaginal mesh kits. Following mesh-kit market withdrawal, we hypothesized similar efficacy through native-tissue reattachment of the pubocervical fascia with fixation of the anterior cervix to the sacrospinous ligament. Few analyses for anterior native-tissue versus mesh-augmented SSH exist.MethodsA retrospective analysis of women who underwent transvaginal anterior SSH between 01 January 2016 and 31 December 2022 was performed. Women who underwent a mesh-augmented (Uphold Lite Vaginal Support System & TRADE;) versus native-tissue repair were compared. Composite success was defined as no bulge symptoms, no retreatment, and no recurrence beyond the hymen with apex nondescended > one third of the total vaginal length. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were obtained as indicated.ResultsOf 223 women screened, inclusion criteria were met by 124 (40 mesh-augmented; 84 native-tissue). There was no difference in pre-operative characteristics between groups. Composite success was demonstrated in 95.2% of women with a median follow-up of 224 days (range: 30-988). Two women in the mesh-augmented group reported bulge symptoms and underwent re-treatment with a pessary. Four women in the native-tissue group reported bulge symptoms; 3 underwent re-treatment (2 pessary, 1 surgery). There were no differences in composite success rates between groups (p=0.954). There were additionally no differences in intra-operative (p=0.752) or post-operative (p=0.292) complication rates between the groups. There were no mesh-related complications, including exposure or chronic pelvic pain.ConclusionsNinety-five percent of women achieved surgical success and the use of mesh augmentation did not confer added benefit in terms of efficacy or complications when compared with native tissue. Further long-term data are needed to continue our assessment of native-tissue anterior SSH.
引用
收藏
页码:2603 / 2609
页数:7
相关论文
共 21 条
[1]   Evaluation of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy vs. Uterosacral Suspension for the Treatment of Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Assessment [J].
Al-Badr, Ahmed ;
Perveen, Kauser ;
Al-Shaikh, Ghadeer .
LUTS-LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS, 2017, 9 (01) :33-37
[2]  
Bowen ST, 2020, FEMALE PELVIC MED RE, V26, pS4
[3]   Hysteropexy: an Option for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse [J].
Bradley, Sarah ;
Gutman, Robert E. ;
Richter, Lee A. .
CURRENT UROLOGY REPORTS, 2018, 19 (02)
[4]   The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications Five-Year Experience [J].
Clavien, Pierre A. ;
Barkun, Jeffrey ;
de Oliveira, Michelle L. ;
Vauthey, Jean Nicolas ;
Dindo, Daniel ;
Schulick, Richard D. ;
de Santibanes, Eduardo ;
Pekolj, Juan ;
Slankamenac, Ksenija ;
Bassi, Claudio ;
Graf, Rolf ;
Vonlanthen, Rene ;
Padbury, Robert ;
Cameron, John L. ;
Makuuchi, Masatoshi .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2009, 250 (02) :187-196
[5]   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
[6]   One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study [J].
Dietz, Viviane ;
van der Vaart, Carl H. ;
van der Graaf, Yolanda ;
Heintz, Peter ;
Koops, Steven E. Schraffordt .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2010, 21 (02) :209-216
[7]   Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study [J].
Gutman, Robert E. ;
Rardin, Charles R. ;
Sokol, Eric R. ;
Matthews, Catherine ;
Park, Amy J. ;
Iglesia, Cheryl B. ;
Geoffrion, Roxana ;
Sokol, Andrew I. ;
Karram, Mickey ;
Cundiff, Geoffrey W. ;
Blomquist, Joan L. ;
Barber, Matthew D. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 216 (01)
[8]   Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: An evolving concept [J].
Hefni, M ;
El-Toukhy, T ;
Bhaumik, J ;
Katsimanis, E .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (03) :645-650
[9]   Evidence-Based Review of Vaginal Native Tissue Hysteropexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse [J].
Hoke, Tanya P. ;
Tan-Kim, Jasmine ;
Richter, Holly E. .
OBSTETRICAL & GYNECOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2019, 74 (07) :429-435
[10]   Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques [J].
Husby, Karen Ruben ;
Larsen, Michael Due ;
Lose, Gunnar ;
Klarskov, Niels .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 30 (11) :1887-1893