Outcomes of the anterior approach versus posterior sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse

被引:5
|
作者
Bastani, Parvin [1 ]
Tayebi, Sona [2 ]
Ghabousian, Amir [3 ]
Salehi-Pourmehr, Hanieh [4 ]
Hajebrahimi, Sakineh [4 ]
机构
[1] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Womens Reprod Hlth Res Ctr, Tabriz, Iran
[2] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Urol Dept, Tabriz, Iran
[3] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Rd Traff Injury Res Ctr, Tabriz, Iran
[4] Tabriz Univ Med Sci, Res Ctr Evidence Based Med, Iranian EBM Ctr Joanna Briggs Inst Ctr Excellence, Azadi St Golgasht Ave, Tabriz 516615731, East Azarbaijan, Iran
关键词
Pelvic organ prolapse; Anterior sacrospinous ligament fixation; Posterior sacrospinous ligament fixation; PERIOPERATIVE BEHAVIORAL-THERAPY; APICAL VAGINAL PROLAPSE; VAULT PROLAPSE; WALL PROLAPSE; SUSPENSION; PFDI-20;
D O I
10.1007/s00192-022-05171-z
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Introduction and hypothesis This study aimed to compare anterior sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) with the standard posterior SSLF concerning complications and outcomes in patients with apical compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods This is an observational descriptive study using prospective data collected from two referral urogynecological centers. The study cohort represents all 135 women in our prospective study who underwent anterior approach bilateral anterior or unilateral posterior meshless SSLF from January 2018 to December 2020 using the PFDI-20 questionnaire and the POP quantification (POP-Q) system pre- and postoperatively. The objective success rate was assessed by the number of POP recurrence cases and total vaginal length (TVL) postoperatively. Patients were followed up for at least 6 months (range, 6 to 18 months). Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Sixty-seven (49.6%) patients underwent posterior SSLF, and 68 (50.4%) underwent anterior SSLF. The mean age of patients was 58.2 +/- 9.7 and 64.9 +/- 11.6, respectively (P < 0.001). Most patients who underwent the posterior approach had stage III apical prolapse (74.6%), while 65.5% of those who underwent anterior SSLF had stage II apical prolapse (P < 0.001). Following the treatment, no significant difference was detected between these two vaginal approaches in terms of women's satisfaction rate (P > 0.05). One case of postoperative recurrence was found in the posterior group, which ultimately led to surgical retreatment. There were no major intra- or postoperative complications in the groups. Postoperative TVL was higher in the anterior SSLF group (P < 0.001). The postoperative POPDI-6, CRADI-8, UDI-6, and PFDI-20 decreased significantly compared to preoperative status in both groups (P < 0.001). Conclusion It appears that the anterior SSLF approach can be regarded as effective as the posterior approach in the management of apical POP. Therefore, the proper surgical technique can be chosen according to the surgeon's expertise and other compartment's prolapse status.
引用
收藏
页码:1857 / 1862
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Surgical outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
    Xiao, Xinyu
    Yu, Xia
    Yin, Litong
    Zhang, Ling
    Feng, Dan
    Zhang, Lushuang
    Gong, Zhaolin
    Zhang, Qiang
    Lin, Yonghong
    He, Li
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2024, 11
  • [42] Serious Complications and Recurrence following Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for the Correction of Apical Prolapse
    De Gracia, Susie
    Fatton, Brigitte
    Cosson, Michel
    Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine
    Ferry, Philippe
    Lucot, Jean-Philippe
    Debodinance, Philippe
    Panel, Laure
    Deffieux, Xavier
    Garbin, Olivier
    Lamblin, Gery
    Carlier-Guerin, Caroline
    Ramanah, Rajeev
    Fauconnier, Arnaud
    Serrand, Chris
    Fritel, Xavier
    de Tayrac, Renaud
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (02)
  • [43] Anterior Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation: A Safe Route for Apical Repair
    Solomon, Ellen R.
    St Marie, Peter
    Jones, Keisha A.
    Harmanli, Oz
    FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2020, 26 (08): : E33 - E36
  • [44] Comparison of Early Postoperative Outcomes for Vaginal Anterior Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation with or without Transvaginal Mesh Insertion
    Galan, Louis-Edouard
    Bartolo, Stephanie
    De Graer, Celine
    Delplanque, Sophie
    Lallemant, Marine
    Cosson, Michel
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (11)
  • [45] Anterior abdominal fixation - a new option in the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
    Sliwa, Jakub
    Kryza-Ottou, Anna
    Grobelak, Justyna
    Domagala, Zygmunt
    Zimmer, Mariusz
    GINEKOLOGIA POLSKA, 2021, 92 (07) : 471 - 474
  • [46] Transvaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse repair
    Rodolfo Milani
    Matteo Frigerio
    Stefano Manodoro
    International Urogynecology Journal, 2017, 28 : 1103 - 1105
  • [47] Transvaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse repair
    Milani, Rodolfo
    Frigerio, Matteo
    Manodoro, Stefano
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2017, 28 (07) : 1103 - 1105
  • [48] A Posterior Approach to Laparoscopic Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension
    Kong, Wei
    Cheng, Xinghan
    Xiong, Guangwu
    JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2018, 22 (02)
  • [49] Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus conventional vaginal surgery for sacrospinous ligament fixation of apical compartment prolapse: a retrospective analysis
    Huang, Lu
    Yu, Jie
    Li, Yan
    Gong, Zhao-Lin
    Feng, Dan
    He, Li
    Lin, Yong-Hong
    BMC SURGERY, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [50] Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension
    Schulten, Sascha F.
    Detollenaere, Renee J.
    IntHout, Joanna
    Kluivers, Kirsten B.
    Van Eijndhoven, Hugo W.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 227 (02) : 252.e1 - 252.e9