Mugdha Kulkarni1, Natharnia Young2, Joseph Lee3, Anna Rosamilia2. 1. Monash Health, 823-865 Centre RRoad, Melbourne, 3165, Australia. doc.mugdha@gmail.com. 2. Monash Health, 823-865 Centre RRoad, Melbourne, 3165, Australia. 3. St. Vincents Clinic, UNSW Sydney Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim was to compare objective and subjective cure rates between Uphold™ hysteropexy (HP) and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with uterosacral suspension. METHODS: A sample size of 49 in each arm would be required to detect a clinical difference of 20% between the groups. Owing to delayed recruitment, this originally planned randomised controlled trial was changed to a patient preference study after randomising initial 6 participants. Women with symptomatic stage ≥2 uterine descent wishing a surgical solution were included. Routine follow-up was scheduled at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and annually thereafter. Primary outcome was absence of stage ≥2 apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included a composite cure of no leading edge beyond the hymen, absence of bulge symptoms and no retreatment; patient-reported outcomes were based on quality-of-life questionnaires (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12, PGI-I, EQ5D and a health score). RESULTS: We recruited 50 patients undergoing VH between 2011 and 2013 and 51 patients undergoing HP between 2011 and 2016. Participants were followed up for a median of 25 months (23-96). Five women from the VH (10%) and 7 from the HP (14%) group were lost to follow-up. Combined anatomical and symptomatic outcomes were available for 41 (82%) VH and 39 (76%) in the HP group. There was no difference in objective apical outcomes; the incidence of stage 2 prolapse was 0% in the VH group and 2% in HP group (p = 0.50). We found no difference in the composite cure rate (78% VH vs 85% HP, 0.45) between the groups. There was no significant difference in surgical complications (p = 0.33), assessed using Clavien-Dindo classification. There was a 2% surgery rate for mesh exposure in the HP group. CONCLUSIONS: Uphold™ uterine suspension and VH appear to have similar objective and subjective cure at 25 months, with no significant difference in surgical complications.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim was to compare objective and subjective cure rates between Uphold™ hysteropexy (HP) and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with uterosacral suspension. METHODS: A sample size of 49 in each arm would be required to detect a clinical difference of 20% between the groups. Owing to delayed recruitment, this originally planned randomised controlled trial was changed to a patient preference study after randomising initial 6 participants. Women with symptomatic stage ≥2 uterine descent wishing a surgical solution were included. Routine follow-up was scheduled at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and annually thereafter. Primary outcome was absence of stage ≥2 apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included a composite cure of no leading edge beyond the hymen, absence of bulge symptoms and no retreatment; patient-reported outcomes were based on quality-of-life questionnaires (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12, PGI-I, EQ5D and a health score). RESULTS: We recruited 50 patients undergoing VH between 2011 and 2013 and 51 patients undergoing HP between 2011 and 2016. Participants were followed up for a median of 25 months (23-96). Five women from the VH (10%) and 7 from the HP (14%) group were lost to follow-up. Combined anatomical and symptomatic outcomes were available for 41 (82%) VH and 39 (76%) in the HP group. There was no difference in objective apical outcomes; the incidence of stage 2 prolapse was 0% in the VH group and 2% in HP group (p = 0.50). We found no difference in the composite cure rate (78% VH vs 85% HP, 0.45) between the groups. There was no significant difference in surgical complications (p = 0.33), assessed using Clavien-Dindo classification. There was a 2% surgery rate for mesh exposure in the HP group. CONCLUSIONS: Uphold™ uterine suspension and VH appear to have similar objective and subjective cure at 25 months, with no significant difference in surgical complications.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
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
Authors: Anna C Frick; Matthew D Barber; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Beri Ridgeway; John Eric Jelovsek; Mark D Walters Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: H J van Brummen; G van de Pol; C I M Aalders; A P M Heintz; C H van der Vaart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2003-09-23
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