Literature DB >> 31529008

Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Charles W Nager1, Anthony G Visco2, Holly E Richter3, Charles R Rardin4, Rebecca G Rogers5,6, Heidi S Harvie7, Halina M Zyczynski8, Marie Fidela R Paraiso9, Donna Mazloomdoost10, Scott Grey11, Amaanti Sridhar11, Dennis Wallace11.   

Abstract

Importance: Vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension is commonly performed for uterovaginal prolapse. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy is an alternative option. Objective: To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy. Design, Setting, Participants: At 9 clinical sites in the US Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse were enrolled in a randomized superiority clinical trial between April 2013 and February 2015. The study was designed for primary analysis when the last randomized participant reached 3 years of follow-up in February 2018. Interventions: Ninety-three women were randomized to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 were randomized to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary treatment failure composite outcome (re-treatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) was evaluated with survival models. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes and adverse events, and were evaluated with longitudinal models or contingency tables as appropriate.
Results: A total of 183 participants (mean age, 66 years) were randomized, 175 were included in the trial, and 169 (97%) completed the 3-year follow-up. The primary outcome was not significantly different among women who underwent hysteropexy vs hysterectomy through 48 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.38-1.02]; P = .06; 36-month adjusted failure incidence, 26% vs 38%). Mean (SD) operative time was lower in the hysteropexy group vs the hysterectomy group (111.5 [39.7] min vs 156.7 [43.9] min; difference, -45.2 [95% CI, -57.7 to -32.7]; P = <.001). Adverse events in the hysteropexy vs hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs 7%), granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs 21%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery, vaginal mesh hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension did not result in a significantly lower rate of the composite prolapse outcome after 3 years. However, imprecision in study results precludes a definitive conclusion, and further research is needed to assess whether vaginal mesh hysteropexy is more effective than vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802281.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31529008      PMCID: PMC6749543          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.12812

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  31 in total

1.  Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes.

Authors:  Manhan K Vu; Juraj Letko; Kelly Jirschele; Adam Gafni-Kane; Aimee Nguyen; Honyan Du; Roger P Goldberg
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-25       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  A non-parametric test for interval-censored failure time data with application to AIDS studies.

Authors:  J Sun
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  The PISQ-IR: considerations in scale scoring and development.

Authors:  Todd H Rockwood; Melissa L Constantine; Olusola Adegoke; Rebecca G Rogers; Elektra McDermott; G Willy Davila; Claudine Domoney; Swati Jha; Dorothy Kammerer-Doak; Emily S Lukacz; Mitesh Parekh; Rachel Pauls; Joan Pitkin; Fiona Reid; Beri Ridgeway; Ranee Thakar; Peter K Sand; Suzette E Sutherland; Montserrat Espuna-Pons
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  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

5.  A body image scale for use with cancer patients.

Authors:  P Hopwood; I Fletcher; A Lee; S Al Ghazal
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  M D Barber; M N Kuchibhatla; C F Pieper; R C Bump
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT).

Authors:  Cathryn Ma Glazener; Suzanne Breeman; Andrew Elders; Christine Hemming; Kevin G Cooper; Robert M Freeman; Anthony Rb Smith; Fiona Reid; Suzanne Hagen; Isobel Montgomery; Mary Kilonzo; Dwayne Boyers; Alison McDonald; Gladys McPherson; Graeme MacLennan; John Norrie
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Kate V Meriwether; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Ethan M Balk; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  A new measure of sexual function in women with pelvic floor disorders (PFD): the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, IUGA-Revised (PISQ-IR).

Authors:  R G Rogers; T H Rockwood; M L Constantine; R Thakar; D N Kammerer-Doak; R N Pauls; M Parekh; B Ridgeway; S Jha; J Pitkin; F Reid; S E Sutherland; E S Lukacz; C Domoney; P Sand; G W Davila; M E Espuna Pons
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study.

Authors:  Viviane Dietz; Carl H van der Vaart; Yolanda van der Graaf; Peter Heintz; Steven E Schraffordt Koops
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-10-16       Impact factor: 2.894

View more
  13 in total

1.  A comparison of modified laparoscopic uterine suspension and vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation for treating pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Hongxia Zhu; Yixuan Sun; Xuan Zheng
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 4.060

2.  Anatomic identification of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension: A step-by-step procedure.

Authors:  Yinluan OuYang; Wanwan Xu; Fan Li; Rui Wang; Xiaofeng Zhao
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Urinary basement membrane graft-augmented sacrospinous ligament suspension: a description of technique and short-term outcomes.

Authors:  Douglas Luchristt; Alison C Weidner; Nazema Y Siddiqui
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 1.932

4.  Complications Reported to the Food and Drug Administration: A Cross-sectional Comparison of Urogynecologic Meshes.

Authors:  Amanda M Artsen; Jessica C Sassani; Pamela A Moalli; Megan S Bradley
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 1.913

5.  Hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension or Uphold™ hysteropexy in women with apical prolapse: a parallel cohort study.

Authors:  Mugdha Kulkarni; Natharnia Young; Joseph Lee; Anna Rosamilia
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Success and failure are dynamic, recurrent event states after surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  J Eric Jelovsek; Marie G Gantz; Emily Lukacz; Amaanti Sridhar; Halina Zyczynski; Heidi S Harvie; Gena Dunivan; Joseph Schaffer; Vivian Sung; R Edward Varner; Donna Mazloomdoost; Matthew D Barber
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Long-term Urinary Outcomes After Transvaginal Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair With and Without Concomitant Midurethral Slings.

Authors:  Lauren Giugale; Amaanti Sridhar; Kimberly L Ferrante; Yuko M Komesu; Isuzu Meyer; Ariana L Smith; Deborah Myers; Anthony G Visco; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Marie Gantz; Halina M Zyczynski
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 2.091

8.  Defining mechanisms of recurrence following apical prolapse repair based on imaging criteria.

Authors:  Shaniel T Bowen; Pamela A Moalli; Steven D Abramowitch; Mark E Lockhart; Alison C Weidner; Cecile A Ferrando; Charles W Nager; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Yuko M Komesu; Heidi S Harvie; Donna Mazloomdoost; Amaanti Sridhar; Marie G Gantz
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 10.693

9.  Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Charles W Nager; Anthony G Visco; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Yuko Komesu; Heidi S Harvie; Halina M Zyczynski; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Amaanti Sridhar; Sonia Thomas
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 10.693

10.  Sexual Activity and Dyspareunia 1 Year After Surgical Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Authors:  Emily S Lukacz; Amaanti Sridhar; Christopher J Chermansky; David D Rahn; Heidi S Harvie; Marie G Gantz; R Edward Varner; Nicole B Korbly; Donna Mazloomdoost
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 7.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.