INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Optimal management of the cervix at the time of hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy for primary uterovaginal prolapse is unknown. Our hypothesis was that recurrent prolapse at 1 year would be more likely after a supracervical robotic hysterectomy (SRH) compared with a total robotic hysterectomy (TRH) at the time of robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) for uterovaginal prolapse. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 83 women who underwent hysterectomy with RSCP over a 24-month period (40 with TRH and 43 with SRH). At 1 year post-procedure, subjects completed validated questionnaires regarding pelvic floor symptoms, sexual function, and global satisfaction, and underwent a pelvic examination to identify mesh exposure and evaluate pelvic floor support. RESULTS: Demographics of the two groups were similar, except for a higher mean body mass index in the TRH group (31.9 TRH vs 25.8 SRH kg/m(2), p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent prolapse ≥ stage II was higher for women who underwent SRH compared with TRH (41.9 % vs 20.0 %, p = 0.03; OR 2.8, 95 % CI, 1.07-7.7). However, when this was analyzed as recurrence ≥ hymen, there was no difference between groups (12.5 % TRH vs 18.6 % SRH, p = 0.45). Likewise, there was no difference between groups when a composite measure of success was used (30 out of 40 [75 %] TRH vs 29 out of 43 [67.4 %] SRH, p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Women who underwent an SRH were 2.8 times more likely to have a recurrent prolapse, ≥ stage II, at 1 year, compared with those who underwent a TRH, but when composite assessment scores were used there was no difference between the groups.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Optimal management of the cervix at the time of hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy for primary uterovaginal prolapse is unknown. Our hypothesis was that recurrent prolapse at 1 year would be more likely after a supracervical robotic hysterectomy (SRH) compared with a total robotic hysterectomy (TRH) at the time of robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) for uterovaginal prolapse. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 83 women who underwent hysterectomy with RSCP over a 24-month period (40 with TRH and 43 with SRH). At 1 year post-procedure, subjects completed validated questionnaires regarding pelvic floor symptoms, sexual function, and global satisfaction, and underwent a pelvic examination to identify mesh exposure and evaluate pelvic floor support. RESULTS: Demographics of the two groups were similar, except for a higher mean body mass index in the TRH group (31.9 TRH vs 25.8 SRH kg/m(2), p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent prolapse ≥ stage II was higher for women who underwent SRH compared with TRH (41.9 % vs 20.0 %, p = 0.03; OR 2.8, 95 % CI, 1.07-7.7). However, when this was analyzed as recurrence ≥ hymen, there was no difference between groups (12.5 % TRH vs 18.6 % SRH, p = 0.45). Likewise, there was no difference between groups when a composite measure of success was used (30 out of 40 [75 %] TRH vs 29 out of 43 [67.4 %] SRH, p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS:Women who underwent an SRH were 2.8 times more likely to have a recurrent prolapse, ≥ stage II, at 1 year, compared with those who underwent a TRH, but when composite assessment scores were used there was no difference between the groups.
Authors: Blake C Osmundsen; Amanda Clark; Crystal Goldsmith; Kerrie Adams; Mary Anna Denman; Renee Edwards; William Thomas Gregory Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Uduak U Andy; Patrick A Nosti; Sarah Kane; Dena White; Lior Lowenstein; Robert E Gutman; Heidi S Harvie Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Geoffrey W Cundiff; Edward Varner; Anthony G Visco; Halina M Zyczynski; Charles W Nager; Peggy A Norton; Joseph Schaffer; Morton B Brown; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-10-31 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Patrick J Culligan; Emil Gurshumov; Christa Lewis; Jennifer L Priestley; Jodie Komar; Nihar Shah; Charbel G Salamon Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Emily R W Davidson; Tonya N Thomas; Erika J Lampert; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Cecile A Ferrando Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Femke van Zanten; Jan J van Iersel; Tim J C Paulides; Paul M Verheijen; Ivo A M J Broeders; Esther C J Consten; Egbert Lenters; Steven E Schraffordt Koops Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Femke van Zanten; Egbert Lenters; Ivo A M J Broeders; Steven E Schraffordt Koops Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 2.894