Charles R Rardin1, Elisabeth A Erekson, Vivian W Sung, Renee M Ward, Deborah L Myers. 1. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, 695 Eddy Street, Suite 12, Providence, RI 02903, USA. crardin@wihri.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of ureteral compromise and of recurrent vault prolapse following vaginal vs. laparoscopic uterosacral vault suspension at the time of vaginal hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective, cohort study, uterosacral ligament suspension was performed using either a vaginal or laparoscopic approach. The primary outcome was intraoperative ureteral compromise; secondary outcomes were postoperative anatomic result and recurrent prolapse. The Canadian Task Force Classification was II-2. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients were included: 96 patients in the vaginal group and 22 patients in the laparoscopic group. Ureteral compromise was identified intraoperatively in 4 (4.2%) cases in the vaginal group; no ureteral compromise was observed in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.33). Failure at the apex, defined as stage > or = II for point C, was seen in 6.3% of patients in the vaginal group as compared with 0% in the laparoscopic group; this difference did not achieve statistical significance. Similarly, trends toward lower recurrent symptomatic vault prolapse (10% vs. 0%), any symptomatic prolapse recurrence (12.5% vs. 4.6%), and higher postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point C were observed in the laparoscopic group (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic uterosacral vault suspension following vaginal hysterectomy is a safe alternative to the vaginal approach.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of ureteral compromise and of recurrent vault prolapse following vaginal vs. laparoscopic uterosacral vault suspension at the time of vaginal hysterectomy. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective, cohort study, uterosacral ligament suspension was performed using either a vaginal or laparoscopic approach. The primary outcome was intraoperative ureteral compromise; secondary outcomes were postoperative anatomic result and recurrent prolapse. The Canadian Task Force Classification was II-2. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients were included: 96 patients in the vaginal group and 22 patients in the laparoscopic group. Ureteral compromise was identified intraoperatively in 4 (4.2%) cases in the vaginal group; no ureteral compromise was observed in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.33). Failure at the apex, defined as stage > or = II for point C, was seen in 6.3% of patients in the vaginal group as compared with 0% in the laparoscopic group; this difference did not achieve statistical significance. Similarly, trends toward lower recurrent symptomatic vault prolapse (10% vs. 0%), any symptomatic prolapse recurrence (12.5% vs. 4.6%), and higher postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point C were observed in the laparoscopic group (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic uterosacral vault suspension following vaginal hysterectomy is a safe alternative to the vaginal approach.
Authors: W Andre Silva; Rachel N Pauls; Jeffrey L Segal; Christopher M Rooney; Steven D Kleeman; Mickey M Karram Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Michael P Aronson; Patricia K Aronson; Allison E Howard; Abraham N Morse; Stephen P Baker; Stephen B Young Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Elisha Jackson; Jorge A Bilbao; Robert W Vera; Zuber D Mulla; Veronica T Mallett; T Ignacio Montoya Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Christopher P Chung; Richard Miskimins; Thomas J Kuehl; Paul M Yandell; Bobby L Shull Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-09-03 Impact factor: 2.894