Cargando…

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy offers a uterine-sparing alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, although randomised comparative data are lacking. This study was aimed at comparing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and va...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Izett-Kay, Matthew L., Rahmanou, Philip, Cartwright, Rufus J., Price, Natalia, Jackson, Simon R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9270299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34424347
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6
_version_ 1784744432478715904
author Izett-Kay, Matthew L.
Rahmanou, Philip
Cartwright, Rufus J.
Price, Natalia
Jackson, Simon R.
author_facet Izett-Kay, Matthew L.
Rahmanou, Philip
Cartwright, Rufus J.
Price, Natalia
Jackson, Simon R.
author_sort Izett-Kay, Matthew L.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy offers a uterine-sparing alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, although randomised comparative data are lacking. This study was aimed at comparing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse was performed, with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. The primary outcome was reoperation for apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported mesh complications, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification, Patient Global Impression of Improvement in prolapse symptoms and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms, Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) and PISQ-12 questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 101 women were randomised and 62 women attended for follow-up at a mean of 100 months postoperatively (range 84–119 months). None reported a mesh-associated complication. The risk of reoperation for apical prolapse was 17.2% following vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and 6.1% following laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH; relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.07–1.68, p = 0.17). Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was associated with a statistically significantly higher apical suspension (POP-Q point C −5 vs −4.25, p = 0.02) and longer total vaginal length (9 cm vs 6 cm, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the change in ICIQ-VS scores between the two groups (ICIQ-VS change −22 vs −25, p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension have comparable reoperation rates and subjective outcomes. Potential advantages of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy include a lower risk of apical reoperation, greater apical support and increased total vaginal length. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9270299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92702992022-07-10 Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial Izett-Kay, Matthew L. Rahmanou, Philip Cartwright, Rufus J. Price, Natalia Jackson, Simon R. Int Urogynecol J Original Article INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy offers a uterine-sparing alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, although randomised comparative data are lacking. This study was aimed at comparing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse was performed, with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. The primary outcome was reoperation for apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported mesh complications, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification, Patient Global Impression of Improvement in prolapse symptoms and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms, Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) and PISQ-12 questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 101 women were randomised and 62 women attended for follow-up at a mean of 100 months postoperatively (range 84–119 months). None reported a mesh-associated complication. The risk of reoperation for apical prolapse was 17.2% following vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and 6.1% following laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH; relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.07–1.68, p = 0.17). Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was associated with a statistically significantly higher apical suspension (POP-Q point C −5 vs −4.25, p = 0.02) and longer total vaginal length (9 cm vs 6 cm, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the change in ICIQ-VS scores between the two groups (ICIQ-VS change −22 vs −25, p = 0.59). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension have comparable reoperation rates and subjective outcomes. Potential advantages of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy include a lower risk of apical reoperation, greater apical support and increased total vaginal length. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6 Springer International Publishing 2021-08-23 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9270299/ /pubmed/34424347 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This 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/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Izett-Kay, Matthew L.
Rahmanou, Philip
Cartwright, Rufus J.
Price, Natalia
Jackson, Simon R.
Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_full Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_short Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_sort laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9270299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34424347
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6
work_keys_str_mv AT izettkaymatthewl laparoscopicsacrohysteropexyversusvaginalhysterectomyandapicalsuspension7yearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT rahmanouphilip laparoscopicsacrohysteropexyversusvaginalhysterectomyandapicalsuspension7yearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cartwrightrufusj laparoscopicsacrohysteropexyversusvaginalhysterectomyandapicalsuspension7yearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT pricenatalia laparoscopicsacrohysteropexyversusvaginalhysterectomyandapicalsuspension7yearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT jacksonsimonr laparoscopicsacrohysteropexyversusvaginalhysterectomyandapicalsuspension7yearfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial