INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uterine conserving re-suspension surgery has become more popular in recent years. Such surgery may allow preservation of fertility in younger women, but may also have the added benefit of augmenting weak connective tissue and possibly providing stronger apical support than the conventional hysterectomy. Our goal was to evaluate the 1- to 4-year outcome of laparoscopic hysteropexy for the surgical management of uterine prolapse. METHODS: This study was a prospective observational study of 182 consecutive women who underwent laparoscopic hysteropexy, with or without additional vaginal repair, from the beginning of 2007 until the end of 2010. Women were invited to attend a dedicated clinic for interview and their prolapse was assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS) and the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) scale. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare pre-operative with postoperative data. Complications and women's satisfaction were also noted. RESULTS: One hundred and forty women agreed to participate; the mean interval from operation was 2.1 years (range 1-4.4). Eighty-nine percent of women felt that their prolapse is "very much" or "much" better using PGI-I subjective outcome measure. There was significant improvement for all parameters of ICIQ-VS and POP-Q scoring post-surgery (p < 0.001). Six women (4 %) had further apical prolapse; of these, 3 underwent further prolapse surgery. None of the participants had any mesh exposure. Ninety two percent of participants would recommend the operation. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysteropexy is a safe and effective treatment. The 1- to 4-year outcome suggests high patient satisfaction and low rates of apical prolapse recurrence. Longer term follow-up and randomized controlled studies are required.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uterine conserving re-suspension surgery has become more popular in recent years. Such surgery may allow preservation of fertility in younger women, but may also have the added benefit of augmenting weak connective tissue and possibly providing stronger apical support than the conventional hysterectomy. Our goal was to evaluate the 1- to 4-year outcome of laparoscopic hysteropexy for the surgical management of uterine prolapse. METHODS: This study was a prospective observational study of 182 consecutive women who underwent laparoscopic hysteropexy, with or without additional vaginal repair, from the beginning of 2007 until the end of 2010. Women were invited to attend a dedicated clinic for interview and their prolapse was assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS) and the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) scale. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare pre-operative with postoperative data. Complications and women's satisfaction were also noted. RESULTS: One hundred and forty women agreed to participate; the mean interval from operation was 2.1 years (range 1-4.4). Eighty-nine percent of women felt that their prolapse is "very much" or "much" better using PGI-I subjective outcome measure. There was significant improvement for all parameters of ICIQ-VS and POP-Q scoring post-surgery (p < 0.001). Six women (4 %) had further apical prolapse; of these, 3 underwent further prolapse surgery. None of the participants had any mesh exposure. Ninety two percent of participants would recommend the operation. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysteropexy is a safe and effective treatment. The 1- to 4-year outcome suggests high patient satisfaction and low rates of apical prolapse recurrence. Longer term follow-up and randomized controlled studies are required.
Authors: A G Visco; A C Weidner; M D Barber; E R Myers; G W Cundiff; R C Bump; W A Addison Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Philip Toozs-Hobson; Robert Freeman; Matthew Barber; Christopher Maher; Bernard Haylen; Stavros Athanasiou; Steven Swift; Kristene Whitmore; Gamal Ghoniem; Dirk de Ridder Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Viviane Dietz; Joyce de Jong; Marieke Huisman; Steven Schraffordt Koops; Peter Heintz; Huub van der Vaart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2007-03-24
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 2.894