Literature DB >> 28971245

Sacrospinous ligament fixation for hysteropexy: does concomitant anterior and posterior fixation improve surgical outcome?

Tsia-Shu Lo1,2,3,4, Ma Clarissa Uy-Patrimonio5,6, Wu-Chiao Hsieh5, Ju-Chun Yang7, Shih Yin Huang8,5, Sandy Chua5,9.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uterine preservation in uterine prolapse is an option for young patients. We hypothesized that sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) with anchorage to both the anterior and posterior cervix (SSH-ap) would have a better outcome than SSH with anchorage to the posterior cervix only (SSH-p).
METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 75 patients who underwent SSH at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between March 2008 and August 2013. Five were excluded due to incomplete data. Of the remaining 70 patients, 35 underwent SSH-p between March 2008 and June 2011, and 35 underwent SSH-ap between June 2010 and August 2013. The primary outcome was the objective anatomical result, and a successful outcome was considered anatomical correction (POP-Q stage 1 or less) of anterior and apical prolapse. Subjective outcome was evaluated using the POPDI-6 questionnaire, and a patient response of "No or mild abdominal organ falling out sensation" together with "No or mild heaviness" was considered to indicate a successful outcome. Anterior fornix and cervical diameter measurements were included. The secondary outcome was quality of life according to the UDI-6, IIQ-7, POPDI-6, and PISQ-12 questionnaires. The 3-year outcome was used for comparison.
RESULTS: The subjective overall cure rates were significantly different between the SSH-p and SSH-ap groups (74.3% and 94.3%, respectively; p = 0.023). However, the objective overall cure rates were not significantly different (74.3% and 82.9%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Anchorage of the anterior cervix and vaginal wall together with the usual posterior anchorage yield better subjective outcomes and apical suspension at 3 years after surgery than anchorage of the posterior cervix and vaginal wall only. The cervix position affected the subjective outcome. Concurrent trachelectomy did not affect the outcome.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pelvic organ prolapse; Sacrospinous hysteropexy; Urogynecology

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28971245     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3487-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  28 in total

1.  An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Philip Toozs-Hobson; Robert Freeman; Matthew Barber; Christopher Maher; Bernard Haylen; Stavros Athanasiou; Steven Swift; Kristene Whitmore; Gamal Ghoniem; Dirk de Ridder
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Viviane Dietz; Joyce de Jong; Marieke Huisman; Steven Schraffordt Koops; Peter Heintz; Huub van der Vaart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-03-24

3.  Validation of a Chinese version of the short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire.

Authors:  Tsung-Hsien Su; Hui-Hsuan Lau
Journal:  J Sex Med       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 3.802

4.  Comparison between Elevate anterior/apical system and Perigee system in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: clinical and sonographic outcomes.

Authors:  Tsia-Shu Lo; Nazura Bt Karim; Eileen Feliz M Cortes; Pei-Ying Wu; Yi-Hao Lin; Yiap Loong Tan
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Choice of pelvic organ prolapse surgery: vaginal or abdominal, native tissue or synthetic grafts, open abdominal versus laparoscopic or robotic.

Authors:  Peter L Dwyer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Predictors for de novo stress urinary incontinence following extensive pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  Tsia-Shu Lo; Nazura Bt Karim; Enie Akhtar Nawawi; Pei-Ying Wu; Zalina Nusee
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation.

Authors:  J T Benson; V Lucente; E McClellan
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Is cervical elongation associated with pelvic organ prolapse?

Authors:  Mitchell B Berger; Rajeev Ramanah; Kenneth E Guire; John O L DeLancey
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-14       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 9.  An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction.

Authors:  Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-11-25       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Is hysterectomy necessary for laparoscopic pelvic floor repair? A prospective study.

Authors:  David M B Rosen; Anshumala Shukla; Gregory M Cario; Mark A Carlton; Danny Chou
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.137

View more
  2 in total

1.  The resurrection of sacrospinous fixation: unilateral apical sling hysteropexy.

Authors:  Dmitry Shkarupa; Nikita Kubin; Ekaterina Shapovalova; Anastasya Zaytseva
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Bilateral Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation with Vaginal Hysterectomy for Apical Uterovaginal Prolapse.

Authors:  Kaiyue Wang; Lijuan Shi; Zheren Huang; Yun Xu
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 3.038

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.