Literature DB >> 30338370

Route of hysterectomy during minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy does not affect postoperative outcomes.

Emily R W Davidson1, Tonya N Thomas2, Erika J Lampert3, Marie Fidela R Paraiso2, Cecile A Ferrando2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Hysterectomy can be performed during sacrocolpopexy, but there are limited studies comparing the effect of route of hysterectomy on adverse events. We hypothesized there would be no difference in adverse events or patient-reported outcomes in women who underwent minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with either vaginal or supracervical hysterectomy.
METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review with a cross-sectional survey component sent to all consenting patients. Patients were identified by procedure code for sacrocolpopexy and hysterectomy from January 2005 to June 2016.
RESULTS: Of the 161 subjects meeting the inclusion criteria, 116 underwent supracervical and 45 vaginal hysterectomy. Overall incidence of perioperative adverse events was low. Vaginal hysterectomy cases were faster (276 vs. 324 min, p < 0.001) and had higher rates of postoperative stress incontinence (22 vs. 9%, p = 0.03). Thirty-one (19%) of all subjects had recurrent prolapse; 10 (6%) underwent repeat surgery. Three (1%) subjects had a mesh exposure (no difference between groups), all treated conservatively. Ninety-six (60%) subjects responded to the survey with a median follow-up of 56 (9-134) months. Ninety-one percent (87) of respondents reported being better since surgery, and 91% (87) reported they would choose the surgery again. Twenty-eight percent (27) reported a surgery-related complication including pain, urinary and bowel symptoms; 8% (8) reported evaluation for recurrent prolapse symptoms, all treated conservatively; 4% (4) of respondents reported a mesh exposure.
CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of adverse events is low and not different between patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with concurrent supracervical or vaginal hysterectomy. One in three patients report pelvic floor symptoms postoperatively, but long-term satisfaction is high.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive hysterectomy; Patient-reported outcomes; Prolapse; Sacrocolpopexy; Vaginal hysterectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30338370     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3790-4

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


  13 in total

1.  Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Erinn M Myers; Lauren Siff; Blake Osmundsen; Elizabeth Geller; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Mesh erosion in robotic sacrocolpopexy.

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

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7).

Authors:  M D Barber; M D Walters; R C Bump
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse.

Authors:  Sushma Srikrishna; Dudley Robinson; Linda Cardozo
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Cecile A Unger; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; John E Jelovsek; Matthew D Barber; Beri Ridgeway
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Validity of the incontinence severity index: comparison with pad-weighing tests.

Authors:  Hogne Sandvik; Montserrat Espuna; Steinar Hunskaar
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2006-03-18

9.  Complications and reoperations after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a mean follow-up of 4 years.

Authors:  David Vandendriessche; Julie Sussfeld; Géraldine Giraudet; Jean-Philippe Lucot; Hélène Behal; Michel Cosson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

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

View more
  4 in total

1.  Mesh complications after total vs supracervical laparoscopic hysterectomy at time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Deepanjana Das; Allison Carroll; Margaret Mueller; Kimberly Kenton; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Sarah Collins; Julia Geynisman-Tan; C Emi Bretschneider
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 1.932

2.  Contemporary Use and Techniques of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy With or Without Robotic Assistance for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Authors:  Patrick J Culligan; Cristina M Saiz; Peter L Rosenblatt
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 7.623

3.  Mesh Exposure Following Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at the Time of Sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Katherine L Woodburn; Amr Sherif El Haraki; Andrew I Sokol; Robert E Gutman; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 1.932

4.  Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study).

Authors:  Daniel Gagyor; Vladimir Kalis; Martin Smazinka; Zdenek Rusavy; Radovan Pilka; Khaled M Ismail
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.809

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.