Daniel Gagyor1, Vladimir Kalis2,3, Martin Smazinka3, Zdenek Rusavy2,3, Radovan Pilka1, Khaled M Ismail4,5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and Faculty Hospital, Olomouc, Czech Republic. 2. Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic. 4. Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic. khaled.ismail@lfp.cuni.cz. 5. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic. khaled.ismail@lfp.cuni.cz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH + LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH + LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH + LSC or TLH + LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. RESULTS: In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH + LSC n = 208 and TLH + LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p = 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.
BACKGROUND: Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH + LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH + LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH + LSC or TLH + LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. RESULTS: In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH + LSC n = 208 and TLH + LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p = 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Christopher F Maher; Matthew D Barber; Sérgio Camargo; Vani Dandolu; Alex Digesu; Howard B Goldman; Martin Huser; Alfredo L Milani; Paul A Moran; Gabriel N Schaer; Mariëlla I J Withagen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Emily R W Davidson; Viviana Casas-Puig; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Beri Ridgeway; Cecile A Ferrando Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Camille P Vaughan; Patricia S Goode; David T Redden; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Alayne D Markland Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.894