Subjective Long-Term Outcomes After Vaginal Native Tissue Hysteropexy: Cohort Study.
Journal
Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
ISSN: 2771-1897
Titre abrégé: Urogynecology (Phila)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918452588006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jan 2024
15 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline:
30
1
2024
pubmed:
30
1
2024
entrez:
30
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
There are still doubts about long-term satisfaction rates of native tissue uterine preserving surgical techniques for pelvic organ prolapse. The objective of this study was to compare long-term subjective success rates and satisfaction rates between vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) and vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (VH-USLS). This was a retrospective single-center, observational matched cohort study in women receiving either SSHP or VH-USLS between 2004 and 2021. Primary outcome was overall subjective success (combined outcome of absence of bulge nor retreatment, and satisfaction with operation) at least 12 months after surgery. Satisfaction with the operation was defined as a combined Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating ≤ 2 and a patient satisfaction score ≥7. Of 583 patients, 192 patients could be matched (SSHP, 96; VH-USLS, 96), with 55% (SSHP, 60; VH-USLS, 45) participating at the telephone interview. Mean follow-up time was 77 months for VH-USLS, and 36 months for SSHP, respectively. No difference in overall subjective success rates was found between the groups (45% VH-USLS and 51% SSHP; P = 0.54). Overall satisfaction was similar between both groups (70% vs 71%, P = 0.90). Logistic regression found no influence of duration of follow-up and the overall subjective success rate. Both procedures would be recommended to a relative or friend by a large majority of patients (88% vs 85%, P = 0.761). Operative time and hospitalization time were significantly shorter in the SSHP group. No serious complications were reported. Overall success rates did not differ between both procedures after at least 1 year of follow-up with relatively high satisfaction rates. Sacrospinous hysteropexy had shorter operative time and shorter duration of hospitalization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38289022
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001449
pii: 02273501-990000000-00172
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, et al. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559–1573. doi:10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8
Slieker-ten Hove MC, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJ, et al. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20(9):1037–1045. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0902-1.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0902-1
Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–1790. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9
Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet. 2007;369(9566):1027–1038. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60462-0.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60462-0
Kurkijärvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Finland from 1987 to 2009: a national register based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;214:71–77. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.004.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.004
Pelvic organ prolapse. ACOG Practice Bulletin Summary, Number 214. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):1124–1127. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003520.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003520
Developed by the joint writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association. Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(3):429–463. doi:10.1007/s00192-020-04236-1.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04236-1
Lin YL, Lo TS, Long CY, et al. Time-frame comparison of hystero-preservation in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: a population-based nation-wide follow-up descriptive study, 2006–2013 versus 1997–2005. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(9):1839–1850. doi:10.1007/s00192-019-04128-z.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04128-z
Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470.e1–470.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003
Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, et al. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):209–216. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-1014-7.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1014-7
Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717. doi:10.1136/bmj.h3717.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3717
Carlin GL, Lange S, Ziegler C, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus prolapse hysterectomy with apical fixation: a retrospective comparison over an 18 year period. J Clin Med. 2023;12(6):2176. doi:10.3390/jcm12062176.
doi: 10.3390/jcm12062176
Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / international continence society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP): International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(2):137–168. doi:10.1002/nau.22922.
doi: 10.1002/nau.22922
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–213. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–528. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5
Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Gayet-Ageron A, et al. Patient satisfaction after laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: outcome report of a continuous series of 417 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1685–1693. doi:10.1007/s00192-017-3327-2.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3327-2
Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129–146.e2. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018
Ridgeway BM. Does prolapse equal hysterectomy? The role of uterine conservation in women with uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(6):802–809. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.035.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.035
Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, et al. 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. Published online September 10, 2019. 2019;366:l5149. doi:10.1136/bmj.l5149.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5149
Detollenaere RJ, Kreuwel IA, Dijkstra JR, et al. The impact of sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments on sexual function in women with uterine prolapse: a secondary analysis of a randomized comparative study. J Sex Med. 2016;13(2):213–219. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.006.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.006
Kapoor S, Sivanesan K, Robertson JA, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(9):1285–1294. doi:10.1007/s00192-017-3291-x.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3291-x
Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, et al. Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):555.e1–555.e5. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.051.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.051