Literature DB >> 17136484

Conservation of the prolapsed uterus is a valid option: medium term results of a prospective comparative study with the posterior intravaginal slingoplasty operation.

M Neuman1, Y Lavy.   

Abstract

It has been reported that, by the age of 80, the risk of women to undergo surgery for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) exceeds 10%, a percentage expected to increase with the rise in life expectancy. The vaginal approach for POP reconstructive operations is associated with fewer complications and results in a shorter rehabilitation period than the abdominal route, whereas hysterectomy is widely performed concomitantly whenever the uterus is significantly prolapsed. However, there is no clear evidence supporting the role of hysterectomy in improving surgery outcome. We present our experience with a new minimally invasive procedure--the posterior intravaginal slingplasty (PIVS) for correction of advanced uterine prolapse--at the same time, comparing additive vaginal hysterectomy to uterine preservation, to evaluate the therapeutic significance of hysterectomy when vaginal apical prolapse is reconstructed with PIVS. Seventy-nine women presenting with moderate to severe uterine prolapse were enrolled into the current PIVS study. Vaginal hysterectomy was concomitantly performed upon patient's request (44 patients), whereas those wishing to preserve their uterus underwent reconstructive surgery only (35 patients). No intraoperative or postoperative major complications were recorded during an average follow-up of 29.8 months: One patient (1.3%) presented with surgical failure, whereas 71 (89.9%) of the operated patients reported satisfaction with the therapeutic results. Bladder overactivity symptoms declined from three thirds of the patients preoperatively to below 10% postoperatively. Ten (12.7%) patients had vaginal tape protrusion; all underwent segmental tape resection at the out-patient clinic. Because the PIVS procedure does not require either laparotomy or deep transvaginal dissection, as previously required for operative intervention, the hospitalization period was relatively short: 4.2 days for the hysterectomy group and 1.5 for the non-hysterectomy group. Other statistically significant differences between the hysterectomy and non-hysterectomy groups were the average ages (63.5 vs 51.0 years, respectively) and concomitant surgery (87% vs 69%, respectively, the higher percentage due to additive amputation of elongated uterine cervices). No other significant differences were recorded. The current results support the previously reported efficacy, safety, and simplicity of the PIVS procedure as well as the legitimacy of uterine preservation. Moreover, unstable bladder symptoms were found to be improved after this operation. However, long-term data are required to be able to draw solid conclusions concerning the superiority of the discussed operation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17136484     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-006-0262-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct


  34 in total

Review 1.  Enterocele repair and vaginal vault suspension.

Authors:  J E Carter
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.927

Review 2.  Surgical management of the apical vaginal defect.

Authors:  Brian J Flynn; George D Webster
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.309

3.  Pelvic organ descent and symptoms of pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  Chiara Ghetti; W Thomas Gregory; S Renee Edwards; Lesley N Otto; Amanda L Clark
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  The contribution of hysterectomy to the occurrence of urge and stress urinary incontinence symptoms.

Authors:  C H van der Vaart; J G van der Bom; J R J de Leeuw; J P W Roovers; A P M Heintz
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 6.531

5.  Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse?

Authors:  C F Maher; M P Cary; M C Slack; C J Murray; M Milligan; P Schluter
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2001

Review 6.  Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety.

Authors:  Danny Lovatsis; Harold P Drutz
Journal:  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.927

7.  Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Emmanuel Barranger; Xavier Fritel; Alain Pigne
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 8.  What's new in prolapse surgery?

Authors:  Bruno Deval; François Haab
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.309

9.  Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept.

Authors:  M Hefni; T El-Toukhy; J Bhaumik; E Katsimanis
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Women's sexual behavior, body image and satisfaction with surgical outcomes after hysterectomy: a comparison of vaginal and abdominal surgery.

Authors:  P Gütl; E R Greimel; R Roth; R Winter
Journal:  J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 2.949

View more
  23 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  Xueli Jia; Cathryn Glazener; Graham Mowatt; David Jenkinson; Cynthia Fraser; Christine Bain; Jennifer Burr
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Gluteo-vaginal sinus formation complicating posterior intravaginal slingplasty followed by successful IVS removal. A case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  Themistoklis Mikos; Tryfon Tsalikis; Alexios Papanikolaou; Fotios Pournaropoulos; John N Bontis
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-09-21

Review 3.  Vaginal surgery for uterine descent; which options do we have? A review of the literature.

Authors:  Viviane Dietz; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; C Huub van der Vaart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-12-16

Review 4.  Uterine-preserving POP surgery.

Authors:  Robert Gutman; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention.

Authors:  Renaud de Tayrac; Loic Sentilhes
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger Groups.

Authors:  Tolgay Tuyan Ilhan; Akin Sivaslioglu; Türkan Ilhan; Mustafa Gazi Uçar; İsmail Dolen
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-07-01

Review 7.  Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sofia Andrade de Oliveira; Marcelo C M Fonseca; Maria A T Bortolini; Manoel J B C Girão; Matheus T Roque; Rodrigo A Castro
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.

Authors:  Christine Hemming; Lynda Constable; Beatriz Goulao; Mary Kilonzo; Dwayne Boyers; Andrew Elders; Kevin Cooper; Anthony Smith; Robert Freeman; Suzanne Breeman; Alison McDonald; Suzanne Hagen; Isobel Montgomery; John Norrie; Cathryn Glazener
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 4.014

9.  The comparison of the anatomical and symptomatic outcomes of sacrocolpopexy and posterior intravaginal slingoplasty.

Authors:  Ahmet Akin Sivaslioglu; Tolga Tuyan Ilhan; Serpil Aydogmus; Mustafa Uzun; Ismail Dolen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Anatomical and functional outcomes of posterior intravaginal slingplasty for the treatment of vaginal vault or uterine prolapse: a prospective, multicenter study.

Authors:  Young-Suk Lee; Deok Hyun Han; Ji Youl Lee; Joon Chul Kim; Myung-Soo Choo; Kyu-Sung Lee
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-03-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.