Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jan;216(1):38.e1-38.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035. Epub 2016 Sep 3.

Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study.

Author information

1
MedStar Washington Hospital Center/Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Electronic address: Robert.E.Gutman@MedStar.net.
2
Alpert Medical School of Brown University/Women & Infants Hospital of Rhode Island, Providence, RI.
3
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
4
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
5
MedStar Washington Hospital Center/Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
6
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
7
Christ Hospital/University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
8
Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Towson, MD.
9
Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is growing interest in uterine conservation at the time of surgery for uterovaginal prolapse, but limited data compare different types of hysteropexy.

OBJECTIVE:

We sought to compare 1-year efficacy and safety of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and vaginal mesh hysteropexy.

STUDY DESIGN:

This multicenter, prospective parallel cohort study compared laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy to vaginal mesh hysteropexy at 8 institutions. We included women ages 35-80 years who desired uterine conservation, were done with childbearing, and were undergoing 1 of the above procedures for stage 2-4 symptomatic anterior/apical uterovaginal prolapse (anterior descent at or beyond the hymen [Aa or Ba ≥ 0] and apical descent at or below the midvagina [C ≥ -TVL/2]). We excluded women with cervical elongation, prior mesh prolapse repair, cervical dysplasia, chronic pelvic pain, uterine abnormalities, and abnormal bleeding. Cure was defined as no prolapse beyond the hymen and cervix above midvagina (anatomic), no vaginal bulge sensation (symptomatic), and no reoperations. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification examination and validated questionnaires were collected at baseline and 12 months including the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form, Female Sexual Function Index, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. In all, 72 subjects/group were required to detect 94% vs 75% cure (80% power, 15% dropout). Intention-to-treat analysis was used with logistic regression adjusting for baseline differences.

RESULTS:

We performed 74 laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and 76 vaginal mesh hysteropexy procedures from July 2011 through May 2014. Laparoscopic patients were younger (P < .001), had lower parity (P = .006), were more likely premenopausal (P = .008), and had more severe prolapse (P = .02). Laparoscopic procedure (174 vs 64 minutes, P < .0001) and total operating time (239 vs 112 minutes, P < .0001) were longer. There were no differences in blood loss, complications, and hospital stay. One-year outcomes for the available 83% laparoscopic and 80% vaginal hysteropexy patients revealed no differences in anatomic (77% vs 80%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.48; P = .20), symptomatic (90% vs 95%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; P = .22), or composite (72% vs 74%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.58; P = .27) cure. Mesh exposures occurred in 2.7% laparoscopic vs 6.6% vaginal hysteropexy (P = .44). A total of 95% of each group were very much better or much better. Pelvic floor symptom and sexual function scores improved for both groups with no difference between groups.

CONCLUSION:

Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and vaginal mesh hysteropexy had similar 1-year cure rates and high satisfaction.

KEYWORDS:

hysteropexy; laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy; pelvic organ prolapse; uphold; uterine conservation; uterine preservation; vaginal mesh

PMID:
27596620
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center