Cargando…

Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Junwei, Sima, Yizhen, Hu, Changdong, Wang, Xiaojuan, Lu, Zhiying, Hua, Keqin, Chen, Yisong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8896356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01535-w
_version_ 1784663144556134400
author Li, Junwei
Sima, Yizhen
Hu, Changdong
Wang, Xiaojuan
Lu, Zhiying
Hua, Keqin
Chen, Yisong
author_facet Li, Junwei
Sima, Yizhen
Hu, Changdong
Wang, Xiaojuan
Lu, Zhiying
Hua, Keqin
Chen, Yisong
author_sort Li, Junwei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years. RESULTS: 89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 ± 7.46 vs 41.81 ± 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 ± 0.90 vs 3.74 ± 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 ± 0.75 vs 7.21 ± 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (− 6.83 ± 0.54 vs − 6.39 ± 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups. CONCLUSION: TS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse. Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8896356
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88963562022-03-14 Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study Li, Junwei Sima, Yizhen Hu, Changdong Wang, Xiaojuan Lu, Zhiying Hua, Keqin Chen, Yisong BMC Surg Research BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years. RESULTS: 89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 ± 7.46 vs 41.81 ± 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 ± 0.90 vs 3.74 ± 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 ± 0.75 vs 7.21 ± 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (− 6.83 ± 0.54 vs − 6.39 ± 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups. CONCLUSION: TS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse. Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered) BioMed Central 2022-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8896356/ /pubmed/35246079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01535-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Li, Junwei
Sima, Yizhen
Hu, Changdong
Wang, Xiaojuan
Lu, Zhiying
Hua, Keqin
Chen, Yisong
Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
title Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
title_full Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
title_short Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
title_sort transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8896356/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246079
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01535-w
work_keys_str_mv AT lijunwei transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT simayizhen transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT huchangdong transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT wangxiaojuan transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT luzhiying transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT huakeqin transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT chenyisong transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy