Sacrospinous ligament fixation: medium and long-term anatomical results, functional and quality of life results.
Anatomical results
Pelvic organ prolapse
Quality of life
Sacrospinous fixation
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 02 2021
12 02 2021
Historique:
received:
16
06
2020
accepted:
25
01
2021
entrez:
13
2
2021
pubmed:
14
2
2021
medline:
1
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate the medium and long-term anatomical results of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SLF) and its impact on quality of life (QoL). We conducted a retrospective and observational single centre study. Fifty-nine patients were interviewed using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire and underwent physical examination using POP-Q several years after SLF. Primary outcome was the comparison of anatomic results of SLF at medium-term (group 1: 1-5 years after surgery) and long-term (group 2: more than 5 years after surgery). The secondary outcome was QoL evaluation. The overall recurrence and complication rates were respectively 22% and 10%, with no significant differences between groups 1 and 2. The recurrence rate was similar in both groups [twelve (35%) in group 1 and nine (20%) in group 2, p = 0.09]. Two patients (12%) in the recurrence and none in the no recurrence group had clinical symptoms (p = 0.08). Two patients (12%) in the recurrence and one patient (2%) in the no-recurrence group had a significant impact on their quality of life (p = 0.12). This study showed sustainable anatomic and functional results of SLF in medium and long-term analysis with overall low morbidity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the medium and long-term anatomical results of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SLF) and its impact on quality of life (QoL).
METHODS
We conducted a retrospective and observational single centre study. Fifty-nine patients were interviewed using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire and underwent physical examination using POP-Q several years after SLF. Primary outcome was the comparison of anatomic results of SLF at medium-term (group 1: 1-5 years after surgery) and long-term (group 2: more than 5 years after surgery). The secondary outcome was QoL evaluation.
RESULTS
The overall recurrence and complication rates were respectively 22% and 10%, with no significant differences between groups 1 and 2. The recurrence rate was similar in both groups [twelve (35%) in group 1 and nine (20%) in group 2, p = 0.09]. Two patients (12%) in the recurrence and none in the no recurrence group had clinical symptoms (p = 0.08). Two patients (12%) in the recurrence and one patient (2%) in the no-recurrence group had a significant impact on their quality of life (p = 0.12).
CONCLUSION
This study showed sustainable anatomic and functional results of SLF in medium and long-term analysis with overall low morbidity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33579252
doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01195-7
pii: 10.1186/s12905-021-01195-7
pmc: PMC7881556
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
66Références
Minerva Chir. 2014 Aug;69(4):239-44
pubmed: 24987972
Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet. 1995 Dec;90(12):525-9
pubmed: 8677405
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jan/Feb;25(1):22-28
pubmed: 29232267
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jul;179(1):13-20
pubmed: 9704759
JAMA. 2018 Apr 17;319(15):1554-1565
pubmed: 29677302
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 21;366(25):2358-67
pubmed: 22716974
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012 Jan-Feb;18(1):10-7
pubmed: 22453258
Curr Urol Rep. 2010 Sep;11(5):338-42
pubmed: 20556556
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 30;11:CD004014
pubmed: 27901278
Int Urogynecol J. 2020 Feb;31(2):351-357
pubmed: 31183536
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;(4):CD004014
pubmed: 23633316
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Nov;189(5):1261-7
pubmed: 14634551
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 01;10:CD012376
pubmed: 27696355
Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Jan;23(1):65-71
pubmed: 21822712
Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Feb;26(2):195-200
pubmed: 24866279
BMC Womens Health. 2017 Jul 26;17(1):52
pubmed: 28747206
Prog Urol. 2013 Sep;23(11):940-5
pubmed: 24010925
Prog Urol. 2009 Dec;19(13):907-15
pubmed: 19969258
Turk J Med Sci. 2018 Jun 14;48(3):602-610
pubmed: 29914258
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2007 Dec;36(8):738-48
pubmed: 17881153
Int Urogynecol J. 2018 Jun;29(6):821-829
pubmed: 28988359
Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Feb;27(2):233-7
pubmed: 26282093
J Med Life. 2011 Jan-Mar;4(1):75-81
pubmed: 21505577
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Dec;175(6):1423-30; discussion 1430-1
pubmed: 8987920
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1968 Apr;28(4):321-7
pubmed: 5670369
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Sep;52(3):311-7
pubmed: 24075365
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jan;190(1):20-6
pubmed: 14749629