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
  • [41] Modified laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical prolapse: A feasibility study
    Wang, Jing
    Xu, Xiaomin
    Xu, Jingui
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2022, 48 (11) : 2918 - 2925
  • [42] Surgical Outcomes in Elderly Patients Following Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Repair of Apical Prolapse
    Dick, A.
    Cohen, A.
    Ryvkin, I
    Rosenbloom, J., I
    Reuveni-salzman, A.
    Shveiky, D.
    Chill, H. H.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2023, 34 : S178 - S178
  • [43] Comparison of laparoscopic lateral suspension and high uterosacral ligament suspension for apical prolapse: a retrospective clinical study
    Yu, Y.
    Mei, L.
    Chen, Y.
    Cui, T.
    Wei, D.
    Niu, X.
    TECHNIQUES IN COLOPROCTOLOGY, 2025, 29 (01)
  • [44] Iatrogenic Bladder Diverticulum 11 Years After Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Apical Prolapse
    Gephart, Laura Faye
    Lewis, Anthony
    Wu, Emily
    Bird, Erin
    Wagner, Kristofer
    Kuehl, Thomas J.
    Larsen, Wilma
    FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2017, 23 (01): : E8 - E9
  • [45] Sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse
    Lantzsch T.
    Goepel C.
    Wolters M.
    Koelbl H.
    Methfessel H.D.
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2001, 265 (1) : 21 - 25
  • [46] vNOTES versus Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Perioperative and Short-Term Outcomes
    Morganstein, Taylor
    Gangal, Mihnea
    Belzile, Eric
    Sohaei, Dorsa
    Bentaleb, Jouhayna
    Reuveni-Salzman, Adi
    Merovitz, Lisa
    Walter, Jens-Erik
    Larouche, Maryse
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2024, 35 (09) : 1899 - 1908
  • [47] Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic versus conventional vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for apical compartment prolapse
    Aharoni, Saar
    Matanes, Emad
    Lauterbach, Roy
    Mor, Omer
    Weiner, Zeev
    Lowenstein, Lior
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2021, 260 : 203 - 207
  • [48] Comparison of two natural tissue repair-based surgical techniques; sacrospinous fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse treatment
    Yilmaz, Emsal Pinar Topdagi
    Yapca, Omer Erkan
    Topdagi, Yunus Emre
    Al, Ragip Atakan
    Kumtepe, Yakup
    JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY OBSTETRICS AND HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2021, 50 (04)
  • [49] Sacrospinous ligament suspension with transobturator mesh versus sacral colpopexy for genital prolapse
    Juliato, Cassia R. T.
    Mazzer, Maira F. G.
    Diniz, Juliana M.
    Farias, Catarina H. S.
    de Castro, Edilson B.
    CLINICS, 2016, 71 (09) : 487 - 493
  • [50] Uterosacral ligament fixation for vaginal vault suspension in uterine and vaginal vault prolapse - Discussion
    Aronson, MP
    Jenkins
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1997, 177 (06) : 1343 - 1344