Bilateral Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation with Vaginal Hysterectomy for Apical Uterovaginal Prolapse
1
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes between bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy (BSHP) and bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (BSLF/VH) in women with apical-predominant uterovaginal prolapse. Methods: Clinical data from patients with symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) stage 2 or higher uterovaginal prolapse who underwent either BSHP (48 patients) or BSLF/VH (69 patients) between January 2014 and December 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The primary outcome was the subjective satisfaction rate evaluated by Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and the secondary outcomes included objective anatomical success rates, impact on disease-specific quality of life evaluated by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7, and surgical complications. Results: After a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 25–58 months), all patients in both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in anatomical and functional outcomes (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative subjective and objective results, sexual satisfaction outcomes, or disease-specific quality of life between the BSHP and BSLF/VH groups, and similar incidence rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications were also recorded. Conclusions: The uterus-sparing BSHP procedure yielded noninferior anatomical and functional outcomes compared to the BSLF/VH procedure and could be adopted as an alternative to conventional hysterectomy-based native-tissue repair modalities for symptomatic apical-predominant uterovaginal prolapse.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes between bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy (BSHP) and bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (BSLF/VH) in women with apical-predominant uterovaginal prolapse. Methods: Clinical data from patients with symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) stage 2 or higher uterovaginal prolapse who underwent either BSHP (48 patients) or BSLF/VH (69 patients) between January 2014 and December 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The primary outcome was the subjective satisfaction rate evaluated by Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and the secondary outcomes included objective anatomical success rates, impact on disease-specific quality of life evaluated by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7, and surgical complications. Results: After a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 25–58 months), all patients in both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in anatomical and functional outcomes (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative subjective and objective results, sexual satisfaction outcomes, or disease-specific quality of life between the BSHP and BSLF/VH groups, and similar incidence rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications were also recorded. Conclusions: The uterus-sparing BSHP procedure yielded noninferior anatomical and functional outcomes compared to the BSLF/VH procedure and could be adopted as an alternative to conventional hysterectomy-based native-tissue repair modalities for symptomatic apical-predominant uterovaginal prolapse.
참고문헌 (21)
- Barber MD, "Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse", Int Urogynecol J, 24, pp.1783~1790 (2013)
- Betschart C, "Management of apical compartment prolapse(uterine and vault prolapse) : a FIGO Working Group report", Neurourol Urodyn, 36, pp.507~513 (2017)
- Kapoor S, "Sacrospinous hysteropexy : review and meta-analysis of outcomes", Int Urogynecol J, 28, pp.1285~1294 (2017)
- Schulten SFM, "Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher : observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial", BMJ, 366, pp.l5149~ (2019)
- Shkarupa D, "The resurrection of sacrospinous fixation : unilateral apical sling hysteropexy", Int Urogynecol J, 31, pp.351~357 (2020)
- Petri, E, "Sacrospinous vaginal fixation--current status", Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 90, pp.429~436 (2011)
- van IJsselmuiden MN, "Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher : laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy-a multicentre randomised controlled trial(LAVA trial)", BJOG, 127, pp.1284~1293 (2020)
- Berger MB, "Is cervical elongation associated with pelvic organ prolapse", Int Urogynecol J, 23, pp.1095~1103 (2012)
- Geoffrion R, "Bilateral sacrospinous vault fixation with tailored synthetic mesh arms : clinical outcomes at one year", J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 37, pp.129~137 (2015)
- Zacche MM, "Trends in prolapse surgery in England", Int Urogynecol J, 29, pp.1689~1695 (2018)
- Meriwether KV, "Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse : a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines", Int Urogynecol J, 30, pp.505~522 (2019)
- Korbly NB, "Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse", Am J Obstet Gynecol, 209, pp.70.e1~70.e6 (2013)
- Meriwether KV, "Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery : a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines", Am J Obstet Gynecol, 219, pp.129~146.e2 (2018)
- Lo TS, "Long-term outcome of native tissue reconstructive vaginal surgery for advanced pelvic organ prolapse at 86 months : hysterectomy versus hysteropexy", J Obstet Gynaecol Res, 41, pp.1099~1107 (2015)
- Ng SC, "Effects of uterine preservation on long-term subjective outcomes of sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse", Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 240, pp.167~171 (2019)
- Costantini E, "Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair : role of hysterectomy", Int Urogynecol J, 24, pp.1481~1487 (2013)
- David-Montefiore E, "Functional results and quality-of-life after bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation for genital prolapse", Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 132, pp.209~213 (2007)
- Anke R. Mothes, "Bilateral minimal tension sacrospinous fixation in pelvic organ prolapse: an observational study", European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 188, pp.1~5 (2015), Elsevier BV[DOI]
- Lo TS, "Sacrospinous ligament fixation for hysteropexy : does concomitant anterior and posterior fixation improve surgical outcome", Int Urogynecol J, 29, pp.811~819 (2018)
- Tseng LH, "Modern role of sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery--a systemic review", Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 52, pp.311~317 (2013)
- Wallner C, "Buttock pain after sacrospinous hysteropexy", Int Urogynecol J, 19, pp.1729~1730 (2008)