Retrospective Cohort Study of Recovery From Sacrocolpopexy Versus Nonmesh Prolapse Repair.
Journal
Urogynecology (Philadelphia, Pa.)
ISSN: 2771-1897
Titre abrégé: Urogynecology (Phila)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9918452588006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Mar 2024
01 Mar 2024
Historique:
medline:
18
3
2024
pubmed:
14
3
2024
entrez:
14
3
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Providing recovery expectations for prolapse surgery is an important part of patient counseling and aids in patient-centered decision making. The purpose of this study was to determine if postoperative recovery from minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISCP) is noninferior to that of native tissue repair. Recovery at 2 and 6 weeks was quantified using the Postdischarge Surgical Recovery 13 scale, where higher scores indicate greater patient-perceived recovery. A 2:1 MISCP to native tissue repair ratio was used. The study population was created from 3 prior studies involving patients who underwent prolapse surgery between 2013 and 2021.Independent-samples t test was used for normally distributed data, Mann-Whitney U tests for nonnormally distributed data, and the χ2 test for population proportions. A parsimonious linear regression analysis was performed to determine if the surgical group independently predicted postdischarge surgical recovery at 2 and 6 weeks, after controlling for significant confounders identified during bivariate analysis. The study population included 476 patients: 352 underwent MISCP and 124 underwent native tissue repair.Postdischarge Surgical Recovery 13 scores for patients who underwent MISCP compared with native tissue repair were higher at 2 weeks (mean, 58.4 ± 18.2 vs 54.4 ± 18.7; P = 0.04) and at 6 weeks postoperatively (mean, 77.2 ± 15.6 vs 73.7 ± 18.7; P = 0.1). Our findings indicate that recovery after MISCP is noninferior to that of native tissue repair. This information is important for delivering patient-centered care during preoperative counseling.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38484246
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001472
pii: 02273501-202403000-00019
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
300-308Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Pelvic organ prolapse. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 214. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):e126–e142. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000003519.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003519
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5 Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD004014.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5
Allvin R, Berg K, Idvall E, et al. Postoperative recovery: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2007;57(5):552–558. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04156.x.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04156.x
Heit M, Carpenter JS, Chen CX, et al. Predictors of postdischarge surgical recovery following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a prospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(5):320–326. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000599.
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000599
Westermann LB, Crisp CC, Mazloomdoost D, et al. Comparative perioperative pain and recovery in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(2):95–100. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000368.
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000368
Kluivers KB, Riphagen I, Vierhout ME, et al. Systematic review on recovery specific quality-of-life instruments. Surgery. 2008;143(2):206–215. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2007.08.017.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2007.08.017
Carpenter JS, Heit M, Chen CX, et al. Validating the postdischarge surgical recovery scale 13 as a measure of perceived postoperative recovery after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(2):86–89. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000352.
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000352
Arunachalam D, Heit MH. Impact of postoperative instructions on physical activity following pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(7):1337–1345. doi:10.1007/s00192-020-04239-y.
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04239-y
Doering A, Hale D, Hamner J, et al. Predictors of recovery expectancy in preparation for pelvic reconstructive surgery in women with pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective cohort study. Urogynecology. 2023;29(7):607–616. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001327.
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001327
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8
Charlson ME, Carrozzino D, Guidi J, et al. Charlson comorbidity index: a critical review of clinimetric properties. Psychother Psychosom. 2022;91(1):8–35. doi:10.1159/000521288.
doi: 10.1159/000521288
Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(6):705–714. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-b.
doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90150-b
Roshanravan SM, Wieslander CK, Schaffer JI, et al. Neurovascular anatomy of the sacrospinous ligament region in female cadavers: implications in sacrospinous ligament fixation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):660.e1–660.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.061.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.061
Siddiqui NY, Mitchell TRT, Bentley RC, et al. Neural entrapment during uterosacral ligament suspension: an anatomic study of female cadavers. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(3):708–713. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ec658a.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ec658a
Rardin CR, Erekson EA, Sung VW, et al. Uterosacral colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(5):273–280.