INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our study was aimed at comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture-based hysteropexy (SutureH) versus sacral hysteropexy using mesh (MeshH) for bothersome uterine prolapse. Our hypothesis is that MeshH is more successful and provides better uterine support than SutureH. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 228 consecutive women who underwent re-suspension of the uterus using uterosacral ligaments (SutureH n=97) or a "U-shaped" mesh from the sacral promontory (MeshH, n=132). Surgery was performed by laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy. Subjects were assessed at baseline, 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The null hypothesis, that SutureH and MeshH have similar success, was based on a composite outcome ("composite success"), and that they provide the same level of uterine support, was based on POP-Q point C at 1 year. "Composite success" was defined as: POP-Q point C above the hymen; absence of a vaginal bulge; no repeat uterine prolapse surgery or pessary placement. Other outcomes included improvement in symptomology using Patient Global Impression of Improvement, POP-Q point C change and complications. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 191 out of 228 women. "Composite success" was not significantly different between MeshH and SutureH groups (81.7% vs 84.5%, p=0.616). MeshH provided better elevation of the uterus than SutureH (point C change: -7.38cm vs -6.99cm; p<0.001). Similar symptom improvement and low complications occurred in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture hysteropexy and mesh sacral hysteropexy provide women with minimally invasive, durable surgical options for uterine preservation. "Composite success" was similar in the two groups, but MeshH provided better uterine support than SutureH. However, SutureH gives women an effective mesh-free option.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our study was aimed at comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture-based hysteropexy (SutureH) versus sacral hysteropexy using mesh (MeshH) for bothersome uterine prolapse. Our hypothesis is that MeshH is more successful and provides better uterine support than SutureH. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 228 consecutive women who underwent re-suspension of the uterus using uterosacral ligaments (SutureH n=97) or a "U-shaped" mesh from the sacral promontory (MeshH, n=132). Surgery was performed by laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy. Subjects were assessed at baseline, 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The null hypothesis, that SutureH and MeshH have similar success, was based on a composite outcome ("composite success"), and that they provide the same level of uterine support, was based on POP-Q point C at 1 year. "Composite success" was defined as: POP-Q point C above the hymen; absence of a vaginal bulge; no repeat uterine prolapse surgery or pessary placement. Other outcomes included improvement in symptomology using Patient Global Impression of Improvement, POP-Q point C change and complications. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available for 191 out of 228 women. "Composite success" was not significantly different between MeshH and SutureH groups (81.7% vs 84.5%, p=0.616). MeshH provided better elevation of the uterus than SutureH (point C change: -7.38cm vs -6.99cm; p<0.001). Similar symptom improvement and low complications occurred in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture hysteropexy and mesh sacral hysteropexy provide women with minimally invasive, durable surgical options for uterine preservation. "Composite success" was similar in the two groups, but MeshH provided better uterine support than SutureH. However, SutureH gives women an effective mesh-free option.
Authors: J L Buller; J R Thompson; G W Cundiff; L Krueger Sullivan; M A Schön Ybarra; A E Bent Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Samuel Daniels; Danielle Robson; Magdalena Palacz; Stuart Howell; Tran Nguyen; Fariba Behnia-Willison Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 2.100
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
Authors: Matthew L Izett-Kay; Philip Rahmanou; Rufus J Cartwright; Natalia Price; Simon R Jackson Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Matthew L Izett-Kay; Dana Aldabeeb; Anthony S Kupelian; Rufus Cartwright; Alfred S Cutner; Simon Jackson; Natalia Price; Arvind Vashisht Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 2.894