OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes after minimally invasive uterosacral ligament hysteropexy (USLH) and mesh-augmented sacrohysteropexy (MSH) for women with uterovaginal prolapse including prolapse recurrence and long-term patient satisfaction. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study with a cross-sectional survey component. The medical record was queried for perioperative data for patients undergoing USLH and MSH between 2004 and 2016. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence was defined as bulge symptoms and/or retreatment with a pessary or surgery. A cross-sectional survey assessed for adverse events and used validated questionnaires to assess symptoms and improvement. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients met the inclusion criteria: 42 MSH and 55 USLH. Mean age was 48 ± 14 years. Patients undergoing MSH were older, had more advanced POP, and were less likely to undergo concurrent procedures. There were no differences in perioperative complications between groups; 22.7% (n = 22) of patients experienced POP recurrence with 8.3% (n = 8) undergoing repeat surgery. After controlling for preoperative differences, there was no difference in POP recurrence between groups. The incidence of sacrohysteropexy mesh exposure was 7% (n = 3). Sixty-one percent (n = 59) of patients completed the survey; median follow-up time was 104 (46-164) months. Forty-one percent of respondents reported bothersome pelvic floor symptoms. Bulge symptoms were more common after MSH (41% vs 10%, P = 0.006). Ninety-three percent of all patients reported improvement after surgery, which was not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 patients experienced POP recurrence with fewer than 10% undergoing repeat surgery for recurrence. There does not seem to be a significant difference in the incidence of recurrence between MSH and USLH.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes after minimally invasive uterosacral ligament hysteropexy (USLH) and mesh-augmented sacrohysteropexy (MSH) for women with uterovaginal prolapse including prolapse recurrence and long-term patient satisfaction. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study with a cross-sectional survey component. The medical record was queried for perioperative data for patients undergoing USLH and MSH between 2004 and 2016. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence was defined as bulge symptoms and/or retreatment with a pessary or surgery. A cross-sectional survey assessed for adverse events and used validated questionnaires to assess symptoms and improvement. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients met the inclusion criteria: 42 MSH and 55 USLH. Mean age was 48 ± 14 years. Patients undergoing MSH were older, had more advanced POP, and were less likely to undergo concurrent procedures. There were no differences in perioperative complications between groups; 22.7% (n = 22) of patients experienced POP recurrence with 8.3% (n = 8) undergoing repeat surgery. After controlling for preoperative differences, there was no difference in POP recurrence between groups. The incidence of sacrohysteropexy mesh exposure was 7% (n = 3). Sixty-one percent (n = 59) of patients completed the survey; median follow-up time was 104 (46-164) months. Forty-one percent of respondents reported bothersome pelvic floor symptoms. Bulge symptoms were more common after MSH (41% vs 10%, P = 0.006). Ninety-three percent of all patients reported improvement after surgery, which was not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: One in 5 patients experienced POP recurrence with fewer than 10% undergoing repeat surgery for recurrence. There does not seem to be a significant difference in the incidence of recurrence between MSH and USLH.
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