Long term surgical outcomes of vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold LiteTM mesh system vs. vaginal vault uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical prolapse

被引:1
|
作者
Lozo, Svjetlana [1 ]
Chill, Henry H. [2 ,4 ]
Botros, Carolyn [3 ]
Goldberg, Roger P. [2 ]
Gafni-Kane, Adam [2 ]
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Irving Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Minimally Invas Gynecol Surg, New York, NY USA
[2] Univ Chicago, Pritzker Sch Med, NorthShore Univ HealthSyst, Div Urogynecol, Skokie, IL 60637 USA
[3] Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Atlantic Urogynecol Associates, Morristown, NJ USA
[4] Univ Chicago, Pritzker Sch Med, NorthShore Univ HealthSyst, Div Urogynecol, 9650 Gross Point Rd, Skokie, IL 60076 USA
关键词
Pelvic organ prolapse; Apical prolapse; Vaginal mesh; Long term study; Uterosacral ligament suspension;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.11.025
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: The aim of this study is to compare long-term outcomes (7-10 years) between vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (VHUSLS) and sacrospinous hysteropexy with the UpholdTM Lite mesh System (SHU) for management of apical prolapse.Methods: Patients undergoing VHUSLS or SHU from 2008 to 2012 at a single tertiary referral center were included. Patients were contacted, asked to return for physical examination, and to complete the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) questionnaire. Our primary outcome was anatomic failure defined as Stage 2 POP or higher of any compartment. The secondary outcome was subjective changes in symptoms based upon PFDI-20 responses.Results: Two-hundred and two women were identified to have undergone the index surgeries from 2008 to 2012. Sixty-three agreed to return for follow up symptom evaluation and examination (30 VHUSLS and 33 SHU). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Clinical cure was high for both groups reaching 93.4 % and 94.0 % for the VHUSLS and SHU groups, respectively (p = 0.721). Anatomical success was lower with 44.7 % and 66.7 % of patients in the VHUSLS and SHU groups, respectively, meeting criteria for success (p = 0.138). There were no mesh complications among patients returning for exams. However, two patients who were contacted and were not interested in this study reported mesh complications and need for additional surgeries. Anterior vaginal wall support was noted to be significantly better supported for SHU (Ba-2.03 +/- 0.75 vs-1.42 +/- 0.92, p = 0.008). There were no differences between groups for overall PFDI-20 scores postoperatively. However, SHU patients reported higher rates of stress urinary incontinence compared to VHUSLS patients.Conclusion: In women with apical prolapse, VHUSLS and SHU afford similar long-term outcomes. SHU patients reported higher rates of stress urinary incontinence.
引用
收藏
页码:150 / 153
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Vaginal Colposuspension Using the Uphold Lite Mesh System versus Transvaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse: A Comparative Study
    Chill, Henry H.
    Navon, Ido
    Reuveni-Salzman, Adi
    Cohen, Adiel
    Dick, Aharon
    Shveiky, David
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 28 (10) : 1759 - 1764
  • [2] Absorbable vs. Permanent Suture for Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse
    Chill, H.
    Cohen-Milun, G.
    Cohen, A.
    Moss, N.
    Winer, J.
    Shveiky, D.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2022, 33 (SUPPL 2) : S402 - S404
  • [3] OUTCOMES OF UTEROSACRAL LIGAMENT SUSPENSION OF VAGINAL VAULT PROLAPSE POST HYSTERECTOMY
    Carey, M. O.
    Agnew, G. J.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 30 : S342 - S342
  • [4] Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension versus vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system: clinical outcome and patient satisfaction
    Chill, Henry H.
    Gutman-Ido, Einat
    Navon, Ido
    Reuveni-Salzman, Adi
    Haj-Yahya, Rani
    Shveiky, David
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2021, 32 (06) : 1513 - 1518
  • [5] Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension versus vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system: clinical outcome and patient satisfaction
    Henry H. Chill
    Einat Gutman-Ido
    Ido Navon
    Adi Reuveni-Salzman
    Rani Haj-Yahya
    David Shveiky
    International Urogynecology Journal, 2021, 32 : 1513 - 1518
  • [6] High uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: comparison of absorbable vs. permanent suture for apical fixation
    Kasturi, Seshadri
    Bentley-Taylor, Miriam
    Woodman, Patrick J.
    Terry, Colin L.
    Hale, Douglass S.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2012, 23 (07) : 941 - 945
  • [7] High uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: comparison of absorbable vs. permanent suture for apical fixation
    Seshadri Kasturi
    Miriam Bentley-Taylor
    Patrick J. Woodman
    Colin L. Terry
    Douglass S. Hale
    International Urogynecology Journal, 2012, 23 : 941 - 945
  • [8] High uterosacral vault suspension vs. abdominal sacrocolpopexy for enterocele and/or vaginal vault prolapse repair
    Descouvieres, C.
    Rondini, C.
    Wenzel, C.
    Morales, A.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2007, 18 : S53 - S53
  • [9] SURGICAL REPAIR OF VAGINAL VAULT PROLAPSE; A COMPARISON BETWEEN UTEROSACRAL LIGAMENT SUSPENSION AND SACROSPINOUS LIGAMENT FIXATION
    Husby, K. R.
    Larsen, M. D.
    Klarskov, N.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 30 : S83 - S83
  • [10] Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy vs Total Vaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Anterior and Apical Prolapse: Surgical Outcome and Patient Satisfaction
    Haj-Yahya, Rani
    Chill, Henry H.
    Levin, Gabriel
    Reuveni-Salzman, Adi
    Shveiky, David
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 27 (01) : 88 - 93