Ureteral Compromise in Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension A Retrospective Cohort

被引:19
作者
Barbier, Heather M. [1 ]
Smith, Margo Z. [1 ]
Eto, Chidimma U. [2 ]
Welgoss, Jeffrey A. [3 ]
Von Pechmann, Walter [3 ]
Horbach, Nicolette [3 ]
Gruber, Daniel D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Walter Reed Natl Mil Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Urogynecol, Bethesda, MD 20889 USA
[2] George Washington Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Washington, DC USA
[3] Inova Fairfax Hosp, Annandale, VA USA
来源
Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery | 2015年 / 21卷 / 06期
关键词
uterosacral ligament suspension; ureteral compromise; laparoscopic prolapse repair; vaginal prolapse repair; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; VAULT SUSPENSION; UTERINE SUSPENSION; HYSTERECTOMY;
D O I
10.1097/SPV.0000000000000202
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate if ureteral compromise is significantly different between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing all women who underwent laparoscopic and vaginal USLSs at 2 institutions (part of a single training program with procedures performed by 11 fellowship-trained Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery gynecologic surgeons) between January 2008 and June 2013. Results: A total of 208 patients in the study underwent a USLS, 148 in the laparoscopic group and 60 in the vaginal group. At baseline, there were statistically significant differences between the groups in mean age (50.4 vs 55.3 years, P = 0.008), parity (2.44 vs 2.77, P = 0.040), and prior hysterectomy (3.4% vs 11.7% in the laparoscopic and vaginal groups, respectively; P = 0.042). There were no ureteral compromises in the laparoscopic group and 6 in the vaginal group (0.0% vs 10.0%, respectively; P < 0.001). In an analysis evaluating only those ureteral compromises requiring stent placement, the higher rate of ureteral compromise in the vaginal group persisted despite exclusion of those cases requiring only suture removal and replacement (0.0% vs 5.0% in the laparoscopic and vaginal groups, respectively; P = 0.023). There was a lower median blood loss in the laparoscopic group (137.5 vs 200.0 mL, respectively; P = 0.002) as well as a lower rate of readmission (0.7% vs 6.7%, respectively; P = 0.025). There were no other significant differences in postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Conclusions: We found a lower rate of ureteral compromise in the laparoscopic approach to USLS compared with the traditional vaginal approach.
引用
收藏
页码:363 / 368
页数:6
相关论文
共 10 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2009, Obstet Gynecol, V114, P1156, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c33c72
  • [2] Comparison of 2 Transvaginal Surgical Approaches and Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Apical Vaginal Prolapse The OPTIMAL Randomized Trial
    Barber, Matthew D.
    Brubaker, Linda
    Burgio, Kathryn L.
    Richter, Holly E.
    Nygaard, Ingrid
    Weidner, Alison C.
    Menefee, Shawn A.
    Lukacz, Emily S.
    Norton, Peggy
    Schaffer, Joseph
    Nguyen, John N.
    Borello-France, Diane
    Goode, Patricia S.
    Jakus-Waldman, Sharon
    Spino, Cathie
    Warren, Lauren Klein
    Gantz, Marie G.
    Meikle, Susan F.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (10): : 1023 - 1034
  • [3] Bilateral uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension with site-specific endopelvic fascia defect repair for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
    Barber, MD
    Visco, AG
    Weidner, AC
    Amundsen, CL
    Bump, RC
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2000, 183 (06) : 1402 - 1410
  • [4] Uterosacral ligament: Description of anatomic relationships to optimize surgical safety
    Buller, JL
    Thompson, JR
    Cundiff, GW
    Sullivan, LK
    Ybarra, MAS
    Bent, AE
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2001, 97 (06) : 873 - 879
  • [5] Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament uterine suspension compared with vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for uterovaginal prolapse
    Diwan, A
    Rardin, CR
    Strohsnitter, WC
    Weld, A
    Rosenblatt, P
    Kohli, N
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2006, 17 (01) : 79 - 83
  • [6] Laparoscopic vaginal vault suspension using uterosacral ligaments: A review of 133 cases
    Lin, LL
    Phelps, JY
    Liu, CY
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2005, 12 (03) : 216 - 220
  • [7] Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis
    Margulies, Rebecca U.
    Rogers, Mary A. M.
    Morgan, Daniel M.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 202 (02) : 124 - 134
  • [8] Laparoscopic uterosacral uterine suspension: A minimally invasive technique for treating pelvic organ prolapse
    Medina, Carlos
    Takacs, Peter
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2006, 13 (05) : 472 - 475
  • [9] Rardin CR, 2009, J REPROD MED, V54, P273
  • [10] Lifetime Risk of Stress Urinary Incontinence or Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery
    Wu, Jennifer M.
    Matthews, Catherine A.
    Conover, Mitchell M.
    Pate, Virginia
    Funk, Michele Jonsson
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2014, 123 (06) : 1201 - 1206