| Literature DB >> 36046323 |
Aruna Verma1, Monika Kashyap1, Abhilasha Gupta2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There are high chances of post-hysterectomy vault prolapse (PHVP) if the vault is not well supported after vaginal hysterectomy in cases of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). High uterosacral ligament suspension (HUSLS) and McCall's culdoplasty are the well-recommended modalities to suspend the vault after vaginal hysterectomy. As both the procedures are accessible to non-urologic gynaecologists, the study was planned in cases of POP. Objective: The study was conducted to compare the anatomic and functional outcomes of patients undergoing vaginal HUSLS vs. McCall's culdoplasty at the time of vaginal hysterectomy.Entities:
Keywords: genital hiatus(gh); levator ani muscle; mccall's culdoplasty; pelvic organ prolapse quantification (pop-q); perineal body(pb); pop-q points; total vaginal length(tvl); vaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension; vaginal hysterectomy; vault prolapse
Year: 2022 PMID: 36046323 PMCID: PMC9417864 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27368
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Demographic Comparison
HUSLS: high uterosacral ligament suspension
| Age | HUSLS | McCall | P-value |
| Mean | 48.65 | 49.23 | 0.9750 |
| Standard deviation | 10.55 | 9.07 | U value |
| Standard error of the mean | 1.67 | 1.43 | 796.50 |
| Median | 50.00 | 48.00 | |
| Quartile 1 | 42.50 | 42.75 | |
| Quartile 3 | 56.25 | 52.00 | |
| Parity | P-value | ||
| Mean | 4.20 | 4.15 | 0.9443 |
| Standard deviation | 1.51 | 1.17 | U value |
| Standard error of the mean | 0.24 | 0.18 | 792.50 |
| Median | 4.00 | 4.00 | |
| Quartile 1 | 3.00 | 4.00 | |
| Quartile 3 | 5.00 | 5.00 | |
| BMI | P-value | ||
| Mean | 22.29 | 21.83 | 0.5999 |
| Standard deviation | 2.67 | 1.92 | U value |
| Standard error of the mean | 0.42 | 0.30 | 745.00 |
| Median | 21.60 | 21.40 | |
| Quartile 1 | 20.40 | 20.40 | |
| Quartile 3 | 24.20 | 23.25 |
Preoperative Comparison of HUSLS and McCall's Culdoplasty
S.D.: standard deviation, SEM: standard error of mean, Q1: Quartile 1, Q3: Quartile 3, HUSLS: high uterosacral ligament suspension, GH: genital hiatus, PB: perineal body, TVL: total vaginal length
| HUSLS vs. McCall | Pre-Op | Mean | S.D. | SEM | Median | Q1 | Q3 | P-value | U value |
| H | Aa | 1.80 | 1.54 | 0.24 | 2.00 | 0.75 | 3.00 | 0.4521 | 725 |
| M | Aa | 1.60 | 1.65 | 0.26 | 2.00 | 0.75 | 3.00 | ||
| H | Ba | 3.89 | 2.35 | 0.37 | 4.00 | 2.75 | 5.00 | 0.2625 | 684 |
| M | Ba | 3.16 | 2.57 | 0.41 | 4.00 | 1.00 | 4.63 | ||
| H | C | 3.80 | 3.05 | 0.48 | 3.50 | 1.00 | 6.00 | 0.1728 | 658.50 |
| M | C | 2.40 | 4.32 | 0.68 | 3.00 | -0.25 | 5.25 | ||
| H | GH | 4.11 | 0.90 | 0.14 | 4.00 | 3.50 | 5.00 | 0.8381 | 765 |
| M | GH | 4.24 | 0.93 | 0.19 | 4.00 | 3.00 | 4.50 | ||
| H | PB | 3.18 | 0.76 | 0.12 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 0.8736 | 784 |
| M | PB | 3.09 | 0.74 | 0.12 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | ||
| H | TVL | 7.94 | 1.14 | 0.18 | 8.00 | 7.38 | 8.50 | 0.2063 | 672 |
| M | TVL | 7.61 | 1.15 | 0.18 | 8.00 | 7.00 | 8.13 | ||
| H | Ap | -0.33 | 2.02 | 0.32 | -1.00 | -2.00 | 1.25 | 0.528 | 699 |
| M | Ap | -0.28 | 1.95 | 0.19 | -1.00 | -2.00 | 1.00 | ||
| H | Bp | 1.00 | 3.18 | 0.50 | 1.00 | -2.00 | 3.00 | 0.118 | 653.50 |
| M | Bp | 1.26 | 2.99 | 0.42 | 1.00 | -1.50 | 2.50 | ||
| H | D | -1.05 | 3.48 | 0.55 | -2.00 | -3.00 | 1.25 | 0.217 | 663.50 |
| M | D | -1.36 | 3.55 | 0.56 | -1.50 | -2.50 | 1.50 |
Effectiveness of HUSLS (According to POP-Q)
S.D.: standard deviation, SEM: standard error of mean, Q1: Quartile 1, Q3: Quartile 3, HUSLS: high uterosacral ligament suspension, POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification, GH: genital hiatus, PB: perineal body, TVL: total vaginal length
| HUSLS | Pre vs. Post | Mean | S.D. | SEM | Median | Q1 | Q3 | P-value | W score |
| Pre | Aa | 1.80 | 1.54 | 0.24 | 2.00 | 0.75 | 3.00 | < 0.0001 | -780.0 |
| Post | Aa | -2.38 | 0.95 | 0.15 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | ||
| Pre | Ba | 3.89 | 2.35 | 0.37 | 4.00 | 2.75 | 5.00 | < 0.0001 | -820.0 |
| Post | Ba | -2.68 | 0.89 | 0.14 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -3.00 | ||
| Pre | C | 3.80 | 3.05 | 0.48 | 3.50 | 1.00 | 6.00 | < 0.0001 | -820.0 |
| Post | C | -6.73 | 0.95 | 0.15 | -7.00 | -7.00 | -6.00 | ||
| Pre | GH | 4.11 | 0.90 | 0.14 | 4.00 | 3.50 | 5.00 | < 0.0001 | -402.0 |
| Post | GH | 3.34 | 0.76 | 0.12 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | ||
| Pre | PB | 3.18 | 0.76 | 0.12 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 0.0133 | 201.0 |
| Post | PB | 3.50 | 0.62 | 0.10 | 3.50 | 3.00 | 4.00 | ||
| Pre | TVL | 7.94 | 1.14 | 0.18 | 8.00 | 7.38 | 8.50 | < 0.0001 | -405.0 |
| Post | TVL | 7.09 | 0.88 | 0.14 | 7.25 | 7.00 | 8.00 | ||
| Pre | Ap | -0.33 | 2.02 | 0.32 | -1.00 | -2.00 | 1.25 | < 0.0001 | -487.0 |
| Post | Ap | -2.63 | 0.70 | 0.11 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | ||
| Pre | Bp | 1.00 | 3.18 | 0.50 | 1.00 | -2.00 | 3.00 | < 0.0001 | -603.0 |
| Post | Bp | -2.68 | 0.62 | 0.10 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.75 | ||
| Pre | D | -1.05 | 3.48 | 0.55 | -2.00 | -3.00 | 1.25 | N/A | N/A |
| Post | D | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Effectiveness of McCall's Culdoplasty (According to POP-Q)
S.D.: standard deviation, SEM: standard error of mean, Q1: Quartile 1, Q3: Quartile 3, POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification, GH: genital hiatus, PB: perineal body, TVL: total vaginal length
| McCall | Pre vs. Post | Mean | S.D. | SEM | Median | Q1 | Q3 | P-value | W Score |
| Pre | Aa | 1.60 | 1.65 | 0.26 | 2.00 | 0.75 | 3.00 | < 0.0001 | -741.0 |
| Post | Aa | -2.55 | 0.85 | 0.13 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | ||
| Pre | Ba | 3.16 | 2.57 | 0.41 | 4.00 | 1.00 | 4.63 | < 0.0001 | -780.0 |
| Post | Ba | -2.58 | 1.24 | 0.20 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -3.00 | ||
| Pre | C | 2.40 | 4.32 | 0.68 | 3.00 | -0.25 | 5.25 | 0.2688 | -52.0 |
| Post | C | 2.33 | 2.16 | 0.50 | 2.00 | -0.50 | -4.00 | ||
| Pre | GH | 4.74 | 1.07 | 0.17 | 5.00 | 4.00 | 5.13 | 0.0004 | -124.0 |
| Post | GH | 4.26 | 1.07 | 0.17 | 4.50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | ||
| Pre | PB | 3.09 | 0.74 | 0.12 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | 0.6719 | -9.0 |
| Post | PB | 3.05 | 0.64 | 0.10 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | ||
| Pre | TVL | 7.61 | 1.15 | 0.18 | 8.00 | 7.00 | 8.13 | 0.5328 | -26.0 |
| Post | TVL | 2.98 | 2.76 | 0.50 | 3.00 | 1.75 | 6.00 | ||
| Pre | Ap | -1.59 | 1.63 | 0.26 | -2.00 | -3.00 | -1.00 | < 0.0001 | -285.0 |
| Post | Ap | -2.63 | 0.67 | 0.11 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | ||
| Pre | Bp | -0.33 | 3.04 | 0.48 | -1.00 | -3.00 | 1.25 | < 0.0001 | -392.0 |
| Post | Bp | -2.70 | 0.72 | 0.11 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | ||
| Pre | D | -2.50 | 3.69 | 0.58 | -4.00 | -5.00 | -2.00 | N/A | N/A |
| Post | D | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Post-operative Comparison of HUSLS and McCall's Culdoplasty
S.D.: standard deviation, SEM: standard error of mean, Q1: Quartile 1, Q3: Quartile 3, HUSLS: high uterosacral ligament suspension, GH: genital hiatus, PB: perineal body, TVL: total vaginal length
| HUSLS vs. McCall | Post-Op | Mean | S.D. | SEM | Median | Q1 | Q3 | P-value | U value |
| H | Aa | -2.38 | 0.95 | 0.15 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | 0.3905 | 722 |
| M | Aa | -2.55 | 0.85 | 0.13 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | ||
| H | Ba | -2.68 | 0.89 | 0.14 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -3.00 | 0.8689 | 789 |
| M | Ba | -2.58 | 1.24 | 0.20 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -3.00 | ||
| H | C | -6.73 | 0.95 | 0.15 | -7.00 | -7.00 | -6.00 | < 0.0001 | 283.50 |
| M | C | -4.66 | 3.16 | 0.50 | -5.00 | -6.00 | -5.00 | ||
| H | GH | 3.34 | 0.76 | 0.12 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 4.00 | < 0.0001 | 403 |
| M | GH | 4.26 | 1.07 | 0.17 | 4.50 | 3.00 | 5.00 | ||
| H | PB | 3.50 | 0.62 | 0.10 | 3.50 | 3.00 | 4.00 | 0.0026 | 505 |
| M | PB | 3.05 | 0.64 | 0.10 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 3.50 | ||
| H | TVL | 7.35 | 0.88 | 0.14 | 7.25 | 7.00 | 8.00 | < 0.0001 | 391.50 |
| M | TVL | 5.78 | 3.16 | 0.50 | 6.00 | 5.75 | 7.00 | ||
| H | Ap | -2.63 | 0.70 | 0.11 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | 0.8304 | 779 |
| M | Ap | -2.63 | 0.67 | 0.11 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 | ||
| H | Bp | -2.68 | 0.62 | 0.10 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.75 | 0.9992 | 796.50 |
| M | Bp | -2.70 | 0.72 | 0.11 | -3.00 | -3.00 | -2.00 |