Literature DB >> 30393822

Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach.

Sara Houlihan1, Shunaha Kim-Fine2, Colin Birch2, Selphee Tang2, Erin A Brennand2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To compare laparoscopic and vaginal approaches to uterosacral ligament vault suspension (USLS) by perioperative data, short-term complications, rates of successful concomitant adnexal surgery and procedural efficacy.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort of USLS procedures performed at the time of hysterectomy at a tertiary care center over a 3-year period. Patient demographics, surgical data, concomitant adnexal procedures and complications were abstracted from a surgical database and compared using parametric or non-parametric tests as appropriate. Validated questionnaires (POPDI-6, UDI-6, PROMIS) were used to collect information on recurrence and long-term complications. Patients were analyzed according to both intention-to-treat analysis based on the intended approach and the completed route of surgery to deal with intraoperative conversions.
RESULTS: Two hundred six patients met the criteria for inclusion; 152 underwent vaginal USLS (V-USLS) and 54 laparoscopic USLS (L-USLS). No statistically significant differences in mean case time, postoperative length of stay or perioperative infection were found. While no ureteric obstructions occurred in the L-USLS group, in the V-USLS group 14 (9%) obstructions occurred (p = 0.023). Postoperative urinary retention was higher with V-USLS (31% vs. 15%, p = 0.024). Rates of successfully completed adnexal surgery differed (56% vs. 98%, p < 0.001) in favor of L-USLS. Patient-reported symptomatic recurrence of prolapse was higher in the V-USLS group (41% vs. 24%, p = 0.046); despite this, re-treatment did not differ between the groups (0% vs. 7%, p = 0.113).
CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative case time and complications did not differ between approaches. However, rates of completed adnexal surgery were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group, which could influence surgical decisions concerning approaches to prolapse surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Laparoscopic surgery; Pelvic organ prolapse; Sacrospinous ligament suspension; Uterosacral ligament suspension; Vaginal surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30393822     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3801-5

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


  23 in total

1.  Apical vault repair, the cornerstone or pelvic vault reconstruction.

Authors:  J W Ross
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  1997

2.  Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial.

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

3.  Incidence of adverse events after uterosacral colpopexy for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vault prolapse.

Authors:  Cecile A Unger; Mark D Walters; Beri Ridgeway; J Eric Jelovsek; Matthew D Barber; Marie Fidela R Paraiso
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Effect of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation With or Without Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Pelvic Organ Vaginal Prolapse on Surgical Outcomes and Prolapse Symptoms at 5 Years in the OPTIMAL Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  J Eric Jelovsek; Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Peggy Norton; Marie Gantz; Holly E Richter; Alison Weidner; Shawn Menefee; Joseph Schaffer; Norma Pugh; Susan Meikle
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  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

Review 6.  Apical prolapse.

Authors:  Matthew D Barber; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Ureteral Compromise in Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: A Retrospective Cohort.

Authors:  Heather M Barbier; Margo Z Smith; Chidimma U Eto; Jeffrey A Welgoss; Walter Von Pechmann; Nicolette Horbach; Daniel D Gruber
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.091

8.  Development and Initial Validation of the PROMIS(®) Sexual Function and Satisfaction Measures Version 2.0.

Authors:  Kevin P Weinfurt; Li Lin; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Jill M Cyranowski; Carrie B Dombeck; Elizabeth A Hahn; Diana D Jeffery; Richard M Luecht; Susan Magasi; Laura S Porter; Jennifer Barsky Reese; Bryce B Reeve; Rebecca A Shelby; Ashley Wilder Smith; John T Willse; Kathryn E Flynn
Journal:  J Sex Med       Date:  2015-09-07       Impact factor: 3.802

9.  Modified McCall culdoplasty versus Shull suspension in pelvic prolapse primary repair: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Federico Spelzini; Matteo Frigerio; Stefano Manodoro; Maria Lieta Interdonato; Maria Cristina Cesana; Debora Verri; Caterina Fumagalli; Martina Sicuri; Elena Nicoli; Serena Polizzi; Rodolfo Milani
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  No. 344-Opportunistic Salpingectomy and Other Methods of Risk Reduction for Ovarian/Fallopian Tube/Peritoneal Cancer in the General Population.

Authors:  Shannon Salvador; Stephanie Scott; Julie Ann Francis; Anita Agrawal; Christopher Giede
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can       Date:  2017-06
View more
  6 in total

1.  Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair.

Authors:  Andrea Braga; Maurizio Serati; Stefano Salvatore; Marco Torella; Roberto Pasqualetti; Andrea Papadia; Giorgio Caccia
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Total laparoscopic multi-compartment native tissue repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Athanasios Protopapas; Dimitrios Zacharakis; Konstantinos Kypriotis; Stavros Athanasiou; Ioanna Lardou; Themos Grigoriadis
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-08-25       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for uterosacral ligament suspension: pilot study of 35 cases of severe pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Zhiying Lu; Yisong Chen; Xiaojuan Wang; Junwei Li; Keqin Hua; Changdong Hu
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 5.  Robotic-assisted repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a scoping review of the literature.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Schachar; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-04

6.  Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs. Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Case-Control Study.

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
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.