Erin Seifert Lavelle1, Lauren E Giugale2, Daniel G Winger3, Li Wang3, Charelle M Carter-Brooks2, Jonathan P Shepherd4. 1. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. Electronic address: ers138@pitt.edu. 2. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee-Women's Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. St Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Hartford, CT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient evidence evaluates which pelvic organ prolapse surgery is best suited to an individual woman based on the stage of her prolapse. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare prolapse recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy and uterosacral ligament suspension after stratifying by preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage. STUDY DESIGN: We compared all women who underwent minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy or vaginal or minimally invasive uterosacral ligament suspension from 2009 through 2015 at a large academic center. All women with preoperative and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification data were included. Patients were grouped by preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage for analysis. Recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy and uterosacral ligament suspension were compared for patients presenting with stage II, III, and IV prolapse, adjusting for potential confounders in regression models. Prolapse recurrence was defined as any retreatment for prolapse or any Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point beyond the hymen. RESULTS: Of 756 women, 633 underwent sacrocolpopexy (83.7%) and 123 (16.3%) underwent uterosacral ligament suspension. In all, 189 (25%) had preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage II prolapse, 527 (69.7%) stage III, and 40 (5.3%) stage IV. Patients were predominantly Caucasian (97.3%) with mean age 59.8 ± 9.5 years. Compared to uterosacral ligament suspension patients, more sacrocolpopexy patients had undergone prior prolapse repair (20.9% vs 5.7%, P < .001) and fewer had known diabetes mellitus (7.9% vs 13.8%, P = .034). Characteristics of the groups were otherwise similar. Median follow-up was 41.0 (interquartile range 13.0-88.8) weeks. Stage II prolapse patients had similar recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy or uterosacral ligament suspension (6.0% vs 5.0, P = 1.00). However, stage III prolapse patients were more likely to experience recurrence following uterosacral ligament suspension (25.7% vs 7.8%, P < .001). This difference persisted after controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, and prior prolapse repair (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-8.2). There was no discernable difference in recurrence rates for women with stage IV prolapse, although sample size was limited. CONCLUSION: Sacrocolpopexy resulted in a lower prolapse recurrence rate than uterosacral ligament suspension for stage III prolapse. However, there was no difference in recurrence rate among women with preoperative stage II prolapse, suggesting mesh augmentation may not be indicated for these patients. Larger prospective trials are necessary for confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Insufficient evidence evaluates which pelvic organ prolapse surgery is best suited to an individual woman based on the stage of her prolapse. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare prolapse recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy and uterosacral ligament suspension after stratifying by preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage. STUDY DESIGN: We compared all women who underwent minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy or vaginal or minimally invasive uterosacral ligament suspension from 2009 through 2015 at a large academic center. All women with preoperative and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification data were included. Patients were grouped by preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage for analysis. Recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy and uterosacral ligament suspension were compared for patients presenting with stage II, III, and IV prolapse, adjusting for potential confounders in regression models. Prolapse recurrence was defined as any retreatment for prolapse or any Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point beyond the hymen. RESULTS: Of 756 women, 633 underwent sacrocolpopexy (83.7%) and 123 (16.3%) underwent uterosacral ligament suspension. In all, 189 (25%) had preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage II prolapse, 527 (69.7%) stage III, and 40 (5.3%) stage IV. Patients were predominantly Caucasian (97.3%) with mean age 59.8 ± 9.5 years. Compared to uterosacral ligament suspension patients, more sacrocolpopexy patients had undergone prior prolapse repair (20.9% vs 5.7%, P < .001) and fewer had known diabetes mellitus (7.9% vs 13.8%, P = .034). Characteristics of the groups were otherwise similar. Median follow-up was 41.0 (interquartile range 13.0-88.8) weeks. Stage II prolapse patients had similar recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy or uterosacral ligament suspension (6.0% vs 5.0, P = 1.00). However, stage III prolapse patients were more likely to experience recurrence following uterosacral ligament suspension (25.7% vs 7.8%, P < .001). This difference persisted after controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, and prior prolapse repair (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-8.2). There was no discernable difference in recurrence rates for women with stage IV prolapse, although sample size was limited. CONCLUSION: Sacrocolpopexy resulted in a lower prolapse recurrence rate than uterosacral ligament suspension for stage III prolapse. However, there was no difference in recurrence rate among women with preoperative stage II prolapse, suggesting mesh augmentation may not be indicated for these patients. Larger prospective trials are necessary for confirmation.
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
Authors: Marine Lallemant; A T M Grob; M Puyraveau; M A G Perik; A H H Alhafidh; M Cosson; R Ramanah Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 4.996