Lindsay C Turner1, Erin S Lavelle2, Jonathan P Shepherd3. 1. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, West Penn Hospital, 4800 Friendship Ave., Pittsburgh, PA, 1522, USA. 2. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. 3. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 300 Halket Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. dr.jon.shepherd@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our objective was to compare complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic (L-USLS) and vaginal (V-USLS) uterosacral ligament suspensions. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of USLS procedures performed at a large academic center from 2011 to 2014. Patient demographics, surgical data, complications, and prolapse recurrence of L-USLS and V-USLS were compared. Logistic regression identified predictors of operative time, complications, and prolapse recurrence. RESULTS: There were 54 L-USLS and 119 V-USLS procedures with median follow-up of 21.5 weeks (IQR 9.3-50.8). Women undergoing L-USLS were less likely to have medical comorbidities and had less severe prolapse, but were more likely to report prior hysterectomy. L-USLS had longer operative times (190.1 ± 46.8 vs 172.7 ± 47.3 min, p = 0.03), but after correcting for concomitant procedures, the operative times of the two approaches were not significantly different (adjusted OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99-1.00). There was no significant difference in complications between groups (24.1 % vs 21.8 %, p = 0.75). However, there were nonsignificant trends toward more ureteral injuries and suture removals following V-USLS. Postoperative POP-Q points of the groups did not differ, except for total vaginal length (TVL), which was longer after L-USLS (8.3 ± 1.1 cm vs 7.4 ± 1.2 cm, p < 0.001). 19 patients met the composite definition of prolapse recurrence, with no significant difference between groups (16.2 % vs 16 %, p = 0.98). After adjusting for preoperative prolapse stage, route was not a significant predictor of prolapse recurrence (adjusted OR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.12-1.30). CONCLUSIONS: L-USLS has comparable clinical outcomes, with similar rates of complications and prolapse recurrence to the traditional vaginal approach.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our objective was to compare complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic (L-USLS) and vaginal (V-USLS) uterosacral ligament suspensions. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of USLS procedures performed at a large academic center from 2011 to 2014. Patient demographics, surgical data, complications, and prolapse recurrence of L-USLS and V-USLS were compared. Logistic regression identified predictors of operative time, complications, and prolapse recurrence. RESULTS: There were 54 L-USLS and 119 V-USLS procedures with median follow-up of 21.5 weeks (IQR 9.3-50.8). Women undergoing L-USLS were less likely to have medical comorbidities and had less severe prolapse, but were more likely to report prior hysterectomy. L-USLS had longer operative times (190.1 ± 46.8 vs 172.7 ± 47.3 min, p = 0.03), but after correcting for concomitant procedures, the operative times of the two approaches were not significantly different (adjusted OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99-1.00). There was no significant difference in complications between groups (24.1 % vs 21.8 %, p = 0.75). However, there were nonsignificant trends toward more ureteral injuries and suture removals following V-USLS. Postoperative POP-Q points of the groups did not differ, except for total vaginal length (TVL), which was longer after L-USLS (8.3 ± 1.1 cm vs 7.4 ± 1.2 cm, p < 0.001). 19 patients met the composite definition of prolapse recurrence, with no significant difference between groups (16.2 % vs 16 %, p = 0.98). After adjusting for preoperative prolapse stage, route was not a significant predictor of prolapse recurrence (adjusted OR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.12-1.30). CONCLUSIONS: L-USLS has comparable clinical outcomes, with similar rates of complications and prolapse recurrence to the traditional vaginal approach.
Authors: Linda Brubaker; Matthew D Barber; Ingrid Nygaard; Charlie W Nager; Edward Varner; Joseph Schaffer; Anthony Visco; Susan Meikle; Cathie Spino Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 8.661
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: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Alison C Weidner; Shawn A Menefee; Emily S Lukacz; Peggy Norton; Joseph Schaffer; John N Nguyen; Diane Borello-France; Patricia S Goode; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cathie Spino; Lauren Klein Warren; Marie G Gantz; Susan F Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Amie Kawasaki; Andrew F Hundley; Alexis A Dieter; Evan R Myers; Vivian W Sung Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-04-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Michael A Liss; Douglas Skarecky; Blanca Morales; Kathryn Osann; Louis Eichel; Thomas E Ahlering Journal: Urology Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Laura C Skoczylas; Lindsay C Turner; Li Wang; Daniel G Winger; Jonathan P Shepherd Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Giuseppe Campagna; Lorenzo Vacca; Giovanni Panico; Giuseppe Vizzielli; Daniela Caramazza; Riccardo Zaccoletti; Monia Marturano; Roberta Granese; Martina Arcieri; Stefano Cianci; Giovanni Scambia; Alfredo Ercoli Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-03-04