Anique M J van Oudheusden1,2, Anne-Lotte W M Coolen3, Hilde Hoskam4, Joggem Veen5, Marlies Y Bongers6,5. 1. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Henri Dunantstraat 1, 5223 GZ, s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. aniquevanoudheusden@gmail.com. 2. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Grow School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. aniquevanoudheusden@gmail.com. 3. Department of Gynaecology, Bergman Clinics, Marathon 1, 1213 PA, Hilversum, The Netherlands. 4. Department of General Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Máxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, 5500 MB, Veldhoven, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Grow School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a frequent occurring health issue, especially concerning elderly women. The objective of this study is to examine the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) for treatment of uterine prolapse. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent a LSH or SSHP. Validated questionnaires and an outpatient examination visit were used to investigate the effects of both surgical treatments. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of success for the apical compartment, defined as no recurrence of uterine prolapse (POP-Q measurement C ≤ 0), no subjective recurrence of POP, and/or not requiring therapy for recurrent prolapse. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative data, anatomical failure, prolapse beyond hymen, subjective outcomes, and disease-specific quality of life. RESULTS: We included 105 patients, 53 in the LSH group and 52 in the SSHP group. The overall response rate of the questionnaires was 83% (n = 87) after a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years (54.2 months; 95% CI 44.8-64.2 months) in the LSH group and 2.5 years (30.1 months; 95% CI 29.3-31.5 months) in the SSHP group. There were no clinically relevant differences between the study groups in composite outcome of success (p = 0.073), anatomical failure of the apical compartment (p = 0.711), vaginal bulge symptoms for which patients consulted professionals (p = 0.126), and patient satisfaction (p = 0.741). The operative time was longer in the LSH group (117 min; interquartile range (IQR) 110-123) compared to the SSHP group (67 minutes; IQR 60-73) (p < 0.001). The duration of hospital stay was also longer in the LSH group (4 days) than in the SSHP group (3 days) (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: LSH and SSHP seem to be equally effective after long-term follow-up in treating uterine prolapse in terms of objective and subjective recurrence.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a frequent occurring health issue, especially concerning elderly women. The objective of this study is to examine the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) for treatment of uterine prolapse. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients who underwent a LSH or SSHP. Validated questionnaires and an outpatient examination visit were used to investigate the effects of both surgical treatments. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of success for the apical compartment, defined as no recurrence of uterine prolapse (POP-Q measurement C ≤ 0), no subjective recurrence of POP, and/or not requiring therapy for recurrent prolapse. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative data, anatomical failure, prolapse beyond hymen, subjective outcomes, and disease-specific quality of life. RESULTS: We included 105 patients, 53 in the LSH group and 52 in the SSHP group. The overall response rate of the questionnaires was 83% (n = 87) after a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years (54.2 months; 95% CI 44.8-64.2 months) in the LSH group and 2.5 years (30.1 months; 95% CI 29.3-31.5 months) in the SSHP group. There were no clinically relevant differences between the study groups in composite outcome of success (p = 0.073), anatomical failure of the apical compartment (p = 0.711), vaginal bulge symptoms for which patients consulted professionals (p = 0.126), and patient satisfaction (p = 0.741). The operative time was longer in the LSH group (117 min; interquartile range (IQR) 110-123) compared to the SSHP group (67 minutes; IQR 60-73) (p < 0.001). The duration of hospital stay was also longer in the LSH group (4 days) than in the SSHP group (3 days) (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: LSH and SSHP seem to be equally effective after long-term follow-up in treating uterine prolapse in terms of objective and subjective recurrence.
Authors: Aparna Diwan; Charles R Rardin; William C Strohsnitter; Alexandra Weld; Peter Rosenblatt; Neeraj Kohli Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2005-07-05
Authors: M Marchionni; G L Bracco; V Checcucci; A Carabaneanu; E M Coccia; F Mecacci; G Scarselli Journal: J Reprod Med Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 0.142
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Jelle Stekelenburg; Joanna IntHout; Mark E Vierhout; Kirsten B Kluivers; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-07-23
Authors: Marijke C Ph Slieker-ten Hove; Annelies L Pool-Goudzwaard; Marinus J C Eijkemans; Regine P M Steegers-Theunissen; Curt W Burger; Mark E Vierhout Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2009-05-15
Authors: Carolien K M Vermeulen; Joggem Veen; Caroline Adang; Sanne A L van Leijsen; Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Marlies Y Bongers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 2.894