Literature DB >> 18971137

Is hysterectomy necessary for laparoscopic pelvic floor repair? A prospective study.

David M B Rosen1, Anshumala Shukla, Gregory M Cario, Mark A Carlton, Danny Chou.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of hysterectomy to laparoscopic pelvic floor repair has any impact on the short-term (perioperative) or long-term (prolapse outcome) effects of the surgery.
DESIGN: A controlled prospective trial (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).
SETTING: Private and public hospitals affiliated with a single institution. PATIENTS: A total of 64 patients with uterovaginal prolapse pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stage 2 to 4 had consent for laparoscopic pelvic floor repair from January 2005 through January 2006 (32 patients in each treatment arm). Patients self-selected to undergo hysterectomy in addition to their surgery.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into group A (laparoscopic pelvic floor repair with hysterectomy) or group B (laparoscopic pelvic floor repair alone). All patients had laparoscopic pelvic floor repair in at least 1 compartment, whereas 52 patients had global pelvic floor prolapse requiring multicompartment repair. Burch colposuspension and/or additional vaginal procedures were performed at the discretion of the surgeon in each case.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Symptoms of prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse quantification system assessments were collected preoperatively, perioperatively, and at 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months postoperatively. Validated mental and physical health questionnaires (Short-Form Health Survey) were also completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 months. No demographic differences occurred between the groups. Time of surgery was greater in group A (+35 minutes), as was estimated blood loss and inpatient stay, although the latter 2 results had no clinically significant impact. No difference between groups was detected in the rate of de novo postoperative symptoms. At 12 months, 4 (12.9%) patients in group A had recurrent prolapse as did 6 (21.4%) patients in group B. At 24 months these figures were 6 (22.2%) and 6 (21.4%), respectively. These differences were not statistically significant (p=.500 at 12 months and .746 at 24 months). In the group not having hysterectomy, 4 (14.3%) of 28 patients had cervical elongation or level-1 prolapse by the 12-month assessment.
CONCLUSION: The addition of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to laparoscopic pelvic floor repair adds approximately 35 minutes to surgical time with no difference in the rate of perioperative or postoperative complications or prolapse outcome. Leaving the uterus in situ, however, is associated with a risk of cervical elongation potentially requiring further surgery. Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair is successful in 80% of patients at 2 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18971137     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.08.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol        ISSN: 1553-4650            Impact factor:   4.137


  17 in total

Review 1.  Uterine-preserving POP surgery.

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

Review 2.  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

3.  Combined anterior trans-obturator mesh and sacrospinous ligament fixation in women with severe prolapse--a case series of 30 months follow-up.

Authors:  Tsia-Shu Lo; Kiran Ashok
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Is cervical elongation associated with pelvic organ prolapse?

Authors:  Mitchell B Berger; Rajeev Ramanah; Kenneth E Guire; John O L DeLancey
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-14       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a retrospective feasibility study.

Authors:  Rodolfo Milani; Matteo Frigerio; Stefano Manodoro; Alice Cola; Federico Spelzini
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a video tutorial.

Authors:  Rodolfo Milani; Matteo Frigerio; Federico Spelzini; Stefano Manodoro
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 8.  [Reconstructive pelvic surgery. Current status and future perspectives].

Authors:  J N Nyarangi-Dix; N Djakovic; M Kurosch; A Haferkamp; M Hohenfellner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 0.639

9.  Sacrospinous ligament fixation for hysteropexy: does concomitant anterior and posterior fixation improve surgical outcome?

Authors:  Tsia-Shu Lo; Ma Clarissa Uy-Patrimonio; Wu-Chiao Hsieh; Ju-Chun Yang; Shih Yin Huang; Sandy Chua
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 10.  Hysteropexy: an Option for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Authors:  Sarah Bradley; Robert E Gutman; Lee A Richter
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 3.092

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.