STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the objective outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy with that of hysterectomy combined with laparoscopic uterosacral colpopexy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, 1999-2010 (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: University hospital in South Australia. PATIENTS: Women with uterovaginal prolapse who had undergone laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy (n = 104) or laparovaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral colpopexy (n = 160). Apical suspension procedures were subdivided into prophylactic (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System [POP-Q] stage 1 apical descent, with stage ≥2 prolapse in an adjacent compartment) and therapeutic (POP-Q stage ≥2 apical descent, with or without adjacent compartment prolapse). INTERVENTIONS: All patients were assessed via POP-Q scoring preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 6 months, annually, and then biannually. Recurrence of bulge symptoms and need for repeat treatment were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic data, preoperative degree of prolapse, and percentages of prophylactic and therapeutic procedures were similar in both groups. With a median follow-up of 2.5 years, objective success rates (POP-Q stage <2 in all compartments) for uterosacral hysteropexy were 53% for prophylactic procedures and 41% for therapeutic procedures, and for hysterectomy with uterosacral colpopexy were 66% for prophylactic procedures and 59% for therapeutic procedures. Repeat operation rates overall were 28% for hysteropexy and 21% for hysterectomy with colpopexy. Failures at the apex specifically were 27% for hysteropexy and 11% for hysterectomy with colpopexy (p < .02). CONCLUSION: Hysterectomy with laparoscopic uterosacral colpopexy produced better objective success rates than did laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy; however, repeat operation rates were not significantly different.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the objective outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy with that of hysterectomy combined with laparoscopic uterosacral colpopexy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, 1999-2010 (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: University hospital in South Australia. PATIENTS: Women with uterovaginal prolapse who had undergone laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy (n = 104) or laparovaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral colpopexy (n = 160). Apical suspension procedures were subdivided into prophylactic (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System [POP-Q] stage 1 apical descent, with stage ≥2 prolapse in an adjacent compartment) and therapeutic (POP-Q stage ≥2 apical descent, with or without adjacent compartment prolapse). INTERVENTIONS: All patients were assessed via POP-Q scoring preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 6 months, annually, and then biannually. Recurrence of bulge symptoms and need for repeat treatment were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic data, preoperative degree of prolapse, and percentages of prophylactic and therapeutic procedures were similar in both groups. With a median follow-up of 2.5 years, objective success rates (POP-Q stage <2 in all compartments) for uterosacral hysteropexy were 53% for prophylactic procedures and 41% for therapeutic procedures, and for hysterectomy with uterosacral colpopexy were 66% for prophylactic procedures and 59% for therapeutic procedures. Repeat operation rates overall were 28% for hysteropexy and 21% for hysterectomy with colpopexy. Failures at the apex specifically were 27% for hysteropexy and 11% for hysterectomy with colpopexy (p < .02). CONCLUSION: Hysterectomy with laparoscopic uterosacral colpopexy produced better objective success rates than did laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy; however, repeat operation rates were not significantly different.
Authors: K Baeßler; T Aigmüller; S Albrich; C Anthuber; D Finas; T Fink; C Fünfgeld; B Gabriel; U Henscher; F H Hetzer; M Hübner; B Junginger; K Jundt; S Kropshofer; A Kuhn; L Logé; G Nauman; U Peschers; T Pfiffer; O Schwandner; A Strauss; R Tunn; V Viereck Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.915
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
Authors: Sarah B Andebrhan; Ashley T Caron; Alec Szlachta-McGinn; Pooja S Parameshwar; Nicholas J Jackson; Amy E Rosenman; Jennifer T Anger; A Lenore Ackerman Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Deepa Gopinath; Chin Yong; Sam Harding-Forrester; Felix McIntyre; Dean McKenzie; Marcus Carey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 1.932