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
  • [21] Management of pudendal nerve entrapment after sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical prolapse
    Vodegel, E.
    van Delft, K.
    Nuboer, C.
    Kowalik, C.
    Roovers, J.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2020, 31 (SUPPL 1) : S35 - S36
  • [22] Single incision apical mesh and sacrospinous ligament fixation in pelvic prolapse surgery
    Sardi, J.
    Prieto, J.
    Gomez, M.
    Cosentino, A.
    Farias, P.
    Maya, G.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2018, 29 : S150 - S150
  • [23] High uterosacral suspension versus sacrospinous fixation in post-hysterectomy vault prolapse: Why take the additional risk?
    Daly, J. O.
    Vasudeva, N.
    Brown, B.
    Frazer, M.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2018, 29 : S19 - S20
  • [24] Comparison of high uterosacral and sacrospinous ligament suspension surgeries for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in women
    Hajhashemi, Maryam
    Zafarbakhsh, Aazam
    Movahedi, Minoo
    Rafieezadeh, Aryan
    Rizi, Behnaz Sattari
    ADVANCED BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, 2023, 12 (01): : 164
  • [25] Serious Complications and Recurrence following Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for the Correction of Apical Prolapse
    De Gracia, Susie
    Fatton, Brigitte
    Cosson, Michel
    Campagne-Loiseau, Sandrine
    Ferry, Philippe
    Lucot, Jean-Philippe
    Debodinance, Philippe
    Panel, Laure
    Deffieux, Xavier
    Garbin, Olivier
    Lamblin, Gery
    Carlier-Guerin, Caroline
    Ramanah, Rajeev
    Fauconnier, Arnaud
    Serrand, Chris
    Fritel, Xavier
    de Tayrac, Renaud
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (02)
  • [26] Impact of 4 versus 6 apical suspension sutures for uterosacral ligament suspension
    Rahn, D. D.
    Richter, H. E.
    Sung, V.
    Pruszynski, J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 228 (03) : S867 - S868
  • [27] A commentary on "Surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse; a comparison between ipsilateral uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation-a nationwide cohort study"
    Rostaminia, Ghazaleh
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2021, 32 (06) : 1451 - 1451
  • [28] Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation vs Uterosacral Ligaments Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Peterson, Andrew C.
    UROLOGY, 2022, 166 : 269 - 270
  • [29] Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation vs Uterosacral Ligaments Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Clark, Joseph Y.
    UROLOGY, 2022, 166 : 256 - 256
  • [30] Technique of extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension for apical suspension
    Lin L. Ow
    Caroline E. Walsh
    Natarajan Rajamaheswari
    Peter L. Dwyer
    International Urogynecology Journal, 2016, 27 : 637 - 639