OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to determine the degree of symptom relief and survival free of retreatment after Mayo-McCall culdoplasty (MMC), open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), and robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients who had undergone surgery for posthysterectomy apical vaginal prolapse from January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2012, at our institution. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were abstracted from electronic health records. Cross-sectional data for current pelvic floor symptoms were collected by using validated questionnaires. Survival free of retreatment was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. To account for selection bias, adjusted analyses using inverse probability weighting (IPW) were performed to compare outcomes for MMC versus ASC, MMC versus RSC, and ASC versus RSC. RESULTS: Of 512 patients, 337 completed at least a validated or abbreviated questionnaire. Among MMC, ASC, and RSC groups, overall Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire Short Form 7, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire 12 summary scores were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in 5-year survival free of retreatment for MMC (94.0%) versus RSC (95.5%) and ASC (94.8%) versus RSC (92.1%). However, patients who had MMC were more likely to have retreatment than patients who had ASC during the first 10 years (10-year survival free of retreatment: 81.1% vs 95.4%; hazard ratio, 3.68 [95% confidence interval, 1.51-8.98]); the 10-year data were not available for RSC comparisons, given the later initiation of RSC. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom relief was comparable after MMC, ASC, and RSC. Among all groups, most patients were free of retreatment for prolapse at 5 years. Between the MMC and ASC groups, survival free of retreatment (%) within 10 years was still favorable, but ASC had greater durability, particularly after accounting for selection bias.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to determine the degree of symptom relief and survival free of retreatment after Mayo-McCall culdoplasty (MMC), open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), and robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS: We retrospectively studied patients who had undergone surgery for posthysterectomy apical vaginal prolapse from January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2012, at our institution. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were abstracted from electronic health records. Cross-sectional data for current pelvic floor symptoms were collected by using validated questionnaires. Survival free of retreatment was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. To account for selection bias, adjusted analyses using inverse probability weighting (IPW) were performed to compare outcomes for MMC versus ASC, MMC versus RSC, and ASC versus RSC. RESULTS: Of 512 patients, 337 completed at least a validated or abbreviated questionnaire. Among MMC, ASC, and RSC groups, overall Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire Short Form 7, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire 12 summary scores were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in 5-year survival free of retreatment for MMC (94.0%) versus RSC (95.5%) and ASC (94.8%) versus RSC (92.1%). However, patients who had MMC were more likely to have retreatment than patients who had ASC during the first 10 years (10-year survival free of retreatment: 81.1% vs 95.4%; hazard ratio, 3.68 [95% confidence interval, 1.51-8.98]); the 10-year data were not available for RSC comparisons, given the later initiation of RSC. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom relief was comparable after MMC, ASC, and RSC. Among all groups, most patients were free of retreatment for prolapse at 5 years. Between the MMC and ASC groups, survival free of retreatment (%) within 10 years was still favorable, but ASC had greater durability, particularly after accounting for selection bias.
Authors: C Rondini; H Braun; J Alvarez; M J Urzúa; R Villegas; C Wenzel; C Descouvieres Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-04-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: John A Occhino; Emanuel C Trabuco; Christine A Heisler; Christopher J Klingele; John B Gebhart Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Guri Rortveit; Jeanette S Brown; David H Thom; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Jennifer M Creasman; Leslee L Subak Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.661
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