Literature DB >> 24618964

Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial.

Matthew D Barber1, Linda Brubaker2, Kathryn L Burgio3, Holly E Richter4, Ingrid Nygaard5, Alison C Weidner6, Shawn A Menefee7, Emily S Lukacz8, Peggy Norton5, Joseph Schaffer9, John N Nguyen10, Diane Borello-France11, Patricia S Goode3, Sharon Jakus-Waldman10, Cathie Spino12, Lauren Klein Warren13, Marie G Gantz13, Susan F Meikle14.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: More than 300,000 surgeries are performed annually in the United States for pelvic organ prolapse. Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) are commonly performed transvaginal surgeries to correct apical prolapse. Little is known about their comparative efficacy and safety, and it is unknown whether perioperative behavioral therapy with pelvic floor muscle training (BPMT) improves outcomes of prolapse surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes between (1) SSLF and ULS and (2) perioperative BPMT and usual care in women undergoing surgery for vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized trial of 374 women undergoing surgery to treat both apical vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence was conducted between 2008 and 2013 at 9 US medical centers. Two-year follow-up rate was 84.5%.
INTERVENTIONS: The surgical intervention was transvaginal surgery including midurethral sling with randomization to SSLF (n = 186) or ULS (n = 188); the behavioral intervention was randomization to receive perioperative BPMT (n = 186) or usual care (n = 188). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome for the surgical intervention (surgical success) was defined as (1) no apical descent greater than one-third into vaginal canal or anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen (anatomic success), (2) no bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms, and (3) no re-treatment for prolapse at 2 years. For the behavioral intervention, primary outcome at 6 months was urinary symptom scores (Urinary Distress Inventory; range 0-300, higher scores worse), and primary outcomes at 2 years were prolapse symptom scores (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory; range 0-300, higher scores worse) and anatomic success.
RESULTS: At 2 years, surgical group was not significantly associated with surgical success rates (ULS, 59.2% [93/157] vs SSLF, 60.5% [92/152]; unadjusted difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -12.2% to 9.6%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.5) or serious adverse event rates (ULS, 16.5% [31/188] vs SSLF, 16.7% [31/186]; unadjusted difference, -0.2%; 95% CI, -7.7% to 7.4%; adjusted OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.6). Perioperative BPMT was not associated with greater improvements in urinary scores at 6 months (adjusted treatment difference, -6.7; 95% CI, -19.7 to 6.2), prolapse scores at 24 months (adjusted treatment difference, -8.0; 95% CI, -22.1 to 6.1), or anatomic success at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Two years after vaginal surgery for prolapse and stress urinary incontinence, neither ULS nor SSLF was significantly superior to the other for anatomic, functional, or adverse event outcomes. Perioperative BPMT did not improve urinary symptoms at 6 months or prolapse outcomes at 2 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00597935.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24618964      PMCID: PMC4083455          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.1719

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  35 in total

1.  Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997.

Authors:  Sarah Hamilton Boyles; Anne M Weber; Leslie Meyn
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  A test for the difference between two treatments in a continuous measure of outcome when there are dropouts.

Authors:  M B Brown
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1992-06

3.  The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.

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

4.  Sacrospinous ligament fixation for eversion of the vagina.

Authors:  G W Morley; J O DeLancey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  R M Ellerkmann; G W Cundiff; C F Melick; M A Nihira; K Leffler; A E Bent
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  M D Barber; M N Kuchibhatla; C F Pieper; R C Bump
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Bilateral uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension with site-specific endopelvic fascia defect repair for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  M D Barber; A G Visco; A C Weidner; C L Amundsen; R C Bump
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997.

Authors:  Jeanette S Brown; L Elaine Waetjen; Leslee L Subak; David H Thom; Stephen Van den Eeden; Eric Vittinghoff
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Validation of a severity index in female urinary incontinence and its implementation in an epidemiological survey.

Authors:  H Sandvik; S Hunskaar; A Seim; R Hermstad; A Vanvik; H Bratt
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 3.710

10.  Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Authors:  Daniel Dindo; Nicolas Demartines; Pierre-Alain Clavien
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  90 in total

1.  Advanced uterovaginal prolapse: is vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty as effective as in lesser degrees of prolapse?

Authors:  Alexandriah Alas; Neeraja Chandrasekaran; Hemikaa Devakumar; Laura Martin; Eric Hurtado; G Willy Davila
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach.

Authors:  Sara Houlihan; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Colin Birch; Selphee Tang; Erin A Brennand
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Alexandriah N Alas; Jennifer T Anger
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Robotic Sacrocolpopexy-Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse?

Authors:  Janine L Oliver; Ja-Hong Kim
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Structural, functional, and symptomatic differences between women with rectocele versus cystocele and normal support.

Authors:  Mitchell B Berger; Giselle E Kolenic; Dee E Fenner; Daniel M Morgan; John O L DeLancey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016).

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

7.  The Design of a Randomized Trial of Vaginal Surgery for Uterovaginal Prolapse: Vaginal Hysterectomy With Native Tissue Vault Suspension Versus Mesh Hysteropexy Suspension (The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial).

Authors:  Charles W Nager; Halina Zyczynski; Rebecca G Rogers; Matthew D Barber; Holly E Richter; Anthony G Visco; Charles R Rardin; Heidi Harvie; Dennis Wallace; Susan F Meikle
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.091

8.  Pelvic floor muscle weakness: a risk factor for anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Schachar; Hemikaa Devakumar; Laura Martin; Sara Farag; Eric A Hurtado; G Willy Davila
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-03-19       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Technique of extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension for apical suspension.

Authors:  Lin L Ow; Caroline E Walsh; Natarajan Rajamaheswari; Peter L Dwyer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Lindsay C Turner; Erin S Lavelle; Jonathan P Shepherd
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.