Sacrospinous fixation versus uterosacral ligament suspension in managing apical prolapse

被引:0
|
作者
McDonald, Jodie [1 ]
Salehi, Omar [1 ]
Sathianathen, Niranjan [1 ]
Dowling, Caroline [2 ]
Elmer, Sandra [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Urol, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Eastern Hlth Clin Sch, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Epworth Med Fdn, Dept Surg, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
关键词
Apical pelvic organ prolapse; Surgical; Robotic; Transvaginal; Mesh-free; VAULT SUSPENSION; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1007/s00345-025-05563-y
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose To compare and assess the safety of two mesh-free surgical techniques in managing apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP); robot assisted/laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF). Methods We performed a retrospective review of 116 women with apical POP who underwent USLS (n = 61) or SSLF (n = 55) by a single surgeon. Demographic data including age, parity, previous POP surgery was recorded. A pre-operative pelvic floor questionnaire was used to identify prevalence of bladder, bowel and vaginal symptoms. POP Quantification system (POP-Q) scores were recorded at surgery and at post-operative reviews. The absolute change in POP-Q scores were recorded as objective measures of pelvic floor support. Other post-operative metrics used include the presence of vaginal bulge, need for repeat POP surgery (re-operation) and subjective improvement in symptoms based on a patient-reported outcome measures survey. Post-operative adverse events were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo grading scale. Multivariable logistical regression analysis was performed to predict factors for failure, re-operation and adverse events. Results Baseline demographics were similar. Mean post-operative follow-up time was 24 months (USLS) and 18.5 months (SSLF). The difference in post-operative C point was not significant (USLS: median - 8 (IQR 2), SSLF: median - 7 cm (IQR 2)). Procedure success rates (post-operative C point < 0) were not different (USLS 90.2%, SSLF 92.5%). Re-operation rates for apical recurrence were similar between groups (SSLF 1.9%, USLS 6.6%). Univariate analysis for re-operation found that age, parity, and surgery type were not predictors of re-operation. The most common post-operative adverse event was urinary tract infection (USLS 10.2%, SSLF 10.5%). Conclusion Robot assisted/laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation are safe and effective mesh-free techniques for management of apical pelvic organ prolapse based on objective improvements in POP-Q score and patient-reported outcome measures.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical prolapse: perioperative outcomes
    Gabra, Martina G.
    Winget, Veronica
    Torabi, Mohammad T.
    Addis, Ilana
    Hatch, Kenneth
    Heusinkveld, John
    GYNECOLOGICAL SURGERY, 2021, 18 (01)
  • [2] A randomized trial of uterosacral ligament suspension or sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical pelvic organ prolapse: Five-year outcomes
    Jelovsek, J. Eric
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 216 (03) : S566 - S566
  • [3] FIVE-YEAR OUTCOMES OF UTEROSACRAL LIGAMENT SUSPENSION OR SACROSPINOUS LIGAMENT FIXATION FOR APICAL PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE: A RANDOMIZED TRIAL
    Jelovsek, J. E.
    Brubaker, L.
    Gantz, M.
    Pugh, N.
    Weidner, A. C.
    Richter, H. E.
    Menefee, S.
    Norton, P.
    Schaffer, J.
    Meikle, S.
    Barber, M. D.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2017, 28 : S1 - S2
  • [4] SURGICAL REPAIR OF VAGINAL VAULT PROLAPSE; A COMPARISON BETWEEN UTEROSACRAL LIGAMENT SUSPENSION AND SACROSPINOUS LIGAMENT FIXATION
    Husby, K. R.
    Larsen, M. D.
    Klarskov, N.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 30 : S83 - S83
  • [5] Uterosacral and Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension for Restoration of Apical Vaginal Support
    Morgan, Daniel M.
    Larson, Kindra
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 53 (01): : 72 - 85
  • [6] Clinical Effect of Uterosacral and Cardinal Ligament Fixation versus Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis
    Huang, Ling-xiao
    Guo, Min
    Sha, Li-xiao
    Chen, Cong
    Lin, Xiao-hua
    Dong, Xiao-xia
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2023, 2023
  • [7] Laparoscopic Pectopexy versus Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in the Treatment of Apical Prolapse
    Brasoveanu, Simona
    Ilina, Razvan
    Balulescu, Ligia
    Pirtea, Marilena
    Secosan, Cristina
    Grigoras, Dorin
    Chiriac, Daniela
    Bardan, Razvan
    Margan, Madalin-Marius
    Alexandru, Alexandru
    Pirtea, Laurentiu
    LIFE-BASEL, 2023, 13 (10):
  • [8] Bilateral Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation With Vaginal Hysterectomy for Apical Uterovaginal Prolapse
    Wang, Kaiyue
    Shi, Lijuan
    Huang, Zheren
    Xu, Yun
    INTERNATIONAL NEUROUROLOGY JOURNAL, 2022, 26 (03) : 239 - 247
  • [9] Short Term Outcome of Modified Extraperitoneal Uterosacral Ligament Fixation (MEUSL) versus Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation (SSF) for Apical Support
    noh, N. H. Mat
    Nusee, Z.
    Ismail, R.
    Riduan, M. T.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2023, 34 : S221 - S222
  • [10] Comparing the Long-Term Outcome of Uterosacral and Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension Surgeries in Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse
    Sukgen, Gokmen
    Kaya, Aski Ellibes
    KONURALP TIP DERGISI, 2018, 10 (03): : 381 - 386