Literature DB >> 31053904

Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques.

Karen Ruben Husby1,2, Michael Due Larsen3,4, Gunnar Lose5,6, Niels Klarskov5,6.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uterine prolapse is a common diagnosis. Today no consensus exists on which operation technique is ideal to treat apical prolapse. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with suspension of the vaginal cuff is the most frequently used. The popularity of uterus-preserving techniques is increasing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of vaginal native tissue operations to treat primary apical prolapse, evaluated on risk of relapse surgery.
METHODS: Data were obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry (NPR), which contains all operations performed in Denmark. Patients operated on for primary apical prolapse in Denmark 2010-2016 were included and followed until 2017. Clinical data were obtained from the Danish Urogynecological Database. Patients who were previously hysterectomized or operated on for prolapse in the apical compartment were excluded. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis and adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, preoperative prolapse stage and previous POP operations.
RESULTS: In total, 7247 operations were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for relapse operation in the apical compartment was significantly higher after sacrospinous hysteropexy (SH) compared with the Manchester-Fothergill procedure (MP) [40.2 confidence interval (CI) 21.6-74.7] and VH (8.5 CI: 6.0-12.1). Likewise, the HR was higher in the anterior compartment after SH compared with MP (4.3 CI: 2.9-6.4) and VH (2.8 CI: 2.0-4.0). No convincing difference was found in the posterior compartment. The 5-year reoperation rates were 30%, 7% and 11% after SH, MP, and VH, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Sacrospinous hysteropexy has exceedingly high numbers of reoperations due to prolapse recurrence.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apical prolapse; Manchester-Fothergill procedure; Pelvic organ prolapse (POP); Sacrospinous hysteropexy; Vaginal hysterectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31053904     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-019-03950-9

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


  5 in total

1.  Commentary on 'Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques'.

Authors:  Matthew L Izett
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Letter to the editor: "Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair".

Authors:  Karen Ruben Husby; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  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

4.  Letter to the editor: Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in uterine prolapse surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Karen Ruben Husby; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 1.932

5.  Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study.

Authors:  Karen R Husby; Kim O Gradel; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 1.932

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.