Literature DB >> 32047967

Anterior repair versus no anterior repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse resolved under simulated apical support at the time of uterosacral ligament suspension.

So Yeon Lee1, Myung Jae Jeon2,3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare treatment outcomes 1 year after uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) with or without concomitant anterior repair (AR) for anterior vaginal wall prolapse resolved under simulated apical support.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 179 women who underwent USLS with or without concomitant AR for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POPQ) stage 2-4 anterior vaginal wall prolapse resolved under simulated apical support, and who completed a 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was composite surgical failure defined as anterior anatomical recurrence (point Ba>0), symptomatic recurrence (presence of vaginal bulge symptoms), or retreatment for prolapse. Secondary outcomes included changes in POPQ values and Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (UDI-6) scores, perioperative outcomes, and complications.
RESULTS: Eighty-six women underwent concomitant AR, and 93 did not. The group receiving AR had more advanced anterior and apical prolapse. Surgical failure rates were significantly higher in the group not receiving AR than in the group receiving AR (21.5% vs 7.0%, p < 0.01). However, there were no differences in the mean point Ba and C values and UDI-6 scores through 12 months postoperatively between the two groups. Operating times were longer, and adverse events, such as immediate postoperative urinary retention and minor wound complications, were more frequent in the group receiving AR (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant AR at the time of USLS seems to reduce the recurrence of anterior vaginal wall prolapse without significant morbidity. Considering the small difference in anatomical outcomes, a longer follow-up period will be required to confirm this.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior repair; Anterior vaginal wall prolapse; Uterosacral ligament suspension

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32047967     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04229-0

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


  3 in total

1.  Posterior repair versus no posterior repair for posterior vaginal wall prolapse resolved under simulated apical support at the time of native tissue apical suspension.

Authors:  Sumin Oh; Seohyun Choi; So Yeon Lee; Myung Jae Jeon
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  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

3.  Comparison of treatment outcomes for native tissue repair and sacrocolpopexy as apical suspension procedures at the time of hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.

Authors:  Sumin Oh; E Kyung Shin; Sowoon Hyun; Myung Jae Jeon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.