Ureteral Compromise in Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension A Retrospective Cohort

被引:19
|
作者
Barbier, Heather M. [1 ]
Smith, Margo Z. [1 ]
Eto, Chidimma U. [2 ]
Welgoss, Jeffrey A. [3 ]
Von Pechmann, Walter [3 ]
Horbach, Nicolette [3 ]
Gruber, Daniel D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Walter Reed Natl Mil Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Urogynecol, Bethesda, MD 20889 USA
[2] George Washington Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Washington, DC USA
[3] Inova Fairfax Hosp, Annandale, VA USA
来源
关键词
uterosacral ligament suspension; ureteral compromise; laparoscopic prolapse repair; vaginal prolapse repair; PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE; VAULT SUSPENSION; UTERINE SUSPENSION; HYSTERECTOMY;
D O I
10.1097/SPV.0000000000000202
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate if ureteral compromise is significantly different between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing all women who underwent laparoscopic and vaginal USLSs at 2 institutions (part of a single training program with procedures performed by 11 fellowship-trained Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery gynecologic surgeons) between January 2008 and June 2013. Results: A total of 208 patients in the study underwent a USLS, 148 in the laparoscopic group and 60 in the vaginal group. At baseline, there were statistically significant differences between the groups in mean age (50.4 vs 55.3 years, P = 0.008), parity (2.44 vs 2.77, P = 0.040), and prior hysterectomy (3.4% vs 11.7% in the laparoscopic and vaginal groups, respectively; P = 0.042). There were no ureteral compromises in the laparoscopic group and 6 in the vaginal group (0.0% vs 10.0%, respectively; P < 0.001). In an analysis evaluating only those ureteral compromises requiring stent placement, the higher rate of ureteral compromise in the vaginal group persisted despite exclusion of those cases requiring only suture removal and replacement (0.0% vs 5.0% in the laparoscopic and vaginal groups, respectively; P = 0.023). There was a lower median blood loss in the laparoscopic group (137.5 vs 200.0 mL, respectively; P = 0.002) as well as a lower rate of readmission (0.7% vs 6.7%, respectively; P = 0.025). There were no other significant differences in postoperative complications between the 2 groups. Conclusions: We found a lower rate of ureteral compromise in the laparoscopic approach to USLS compared with the traditional vaginal approach.
引用
收藏
页码:363 / 368
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Rate of ureteral compromise and recurrent prolapse following laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension: A retrospective study
    Gabra, M. G.
    Winget, V.
    Addis, I.
    Hatch, K.
    Heusinkveld, J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 222 (03) : S815 - S815
  • [2] Vaginal versus laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension: Does approach matter?
    Eto, C. U.
    Northington, G. M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 218 (02) : S945 - S945
  • [3] Outcome of Laparoscopic versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Vault Suspension at the Time of Hysterectomy
    Carey, M.
    Alexander, J.
    Rosamilia, A.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2023, 34 : S54 - S55
  • [4] Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: A Retrospective Cohort of Absorbable and Permanent Suture Groups
    Bradley, Megan S.
    Bickhaus, Jennifer A.
    Amundsen, Cindy L.
    Newcomb, Laura K.
    Truong, Tracy
    Weidner, Alison C.
    Siddiqui, Nazema Y.
    FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2018, 24 (03): : 207 - 212
  • [5] Outcome of Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal High Uterosacral Ligament Vault Suspension at the Time of Hysterectomy
    Vereeck, Sascha
    Alexander, James
    Carey, Michael
    Rosamilia, Anna
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2025, : 695 - 702
  • [6] Laparoscopic High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension and Vaginal Anterior Colporrhaphy
    Di Serio, M.
    Novaretti, G.
    Ghi, T.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2022, 33 (SUPPL 2) : S384 - S384
  • [7] OUTCOMES OF VAGINAL AND LAPAROSCOPIC UTEROSACRAL LIGAMENT SUSPENSION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Pandya, L. K.
    Smith, P. E.
    Hundley, A. F.
    Nekkanti, S.
    Robison, E. H.
    Hudson, C. O.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 30 : S86 - S86
  • [8] Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Suspension
    Ross, J.
    Yuan, A.
    Chapman, G.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2022, 33 (SUPPL 2) : S377 - S377
  • [9] National Analysis of Perioperative Morbidity of Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at the Time of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension
    Chapman, Graham C.
    Slopnick, Emily A.
    Roberts, Kasey
    Sheyn, David
    Wherley, Susan
    Mahajan, Sangeeta T.
    Pollard, Robert R.
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 28 (02) : 275 - 281
  • [10] Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament uterine suspension compared with vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for uterovaginal prolapse
    Aparna Diwan
    Charles R. Rardin
    William C. Strohsnitter
    Alexandra Weld
    Peter Rosenblatt
    Neeraj Kohli
    International Urogynecology Journal, 2006, 17 : 79 - 83