دورية أكاديمية
أعرض في EDS

Clinical outcomes and complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with versus without concomitant hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse in Hong Kong Chinese patients after median follow-up of 7 years.

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
العنوان: Clinical outcomes and complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with versus without concomitant hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse in Hong Kong Chinese patients after median follow-up of 7 years.
المؤلفون: Chan JCY; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, United Christian Hospital, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong. joyceccyj@gmail.com., Yu CH; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, United Christian Hospital, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong., Go WW; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, United Christian Hospital, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
المصدر: International urogynecology journal [Int Urogynecol J] 2023 Jan; Vol. 34 (1), pp. 271-278. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Nov 17.
نوع المنشور: Journal Article
اللغة: English
بيانات الدورية: Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101567041 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1433-3023 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 09373462 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int Urogynecol J Subsets: MEDLINE
أسماء مطبوعة: Original Publication: London : Springer
مواضيع طبية MeSH: Laparoscopy*/adverse effects , Laparoscopy*/methods , Pelvic Organ Prolapse*/surgery , Pelvic Organ Prolapse*/etiology, Humans ; Female ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures/methods ; Follow-Up Studies ; Vagina/surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; East Asian People ; Hong Kong/epidemiology ; Treatment Outcome ; Postoperative Complications/epidemiology ; Postoperative Complications/etiology ; Postoperative Complications/surgery ; Hysterectomy/adverse effects ; Hysterectomy/methods
مستخلص: Introduction and Hypothesis: This retrospective cohort study is aimed at comparing outcomes and complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with or without concomitant hysterectomy in the Hong Kong Chinese population.
Methods: Women with stage II or above uterine or apical vault prolapse who underwent LSC with or without concomitant hysterectomy in a regional referral unit from 2007 to 2019 were included. The primary objectives were to compare the anatomical outcomes by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q) and recurrence of apical vault prolapse (≥stage II). The secondary objective was to compare the functional outcomes and complications. Anatomical recurrence and incidence of mesh exposure were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard regression was performed to identify risk factors of anatomical recurrence.
Results: Seventy-six women were included for analysis. The recurrence rate of apical vault prolapse was 3.9% after a median follow-up time of 83 months (20-190 months). A significant reduction of POP-Q scores of three compartments in both groups of women were demonstrated (p<0.001). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of functional outcomes and complications. 6.6% of women developed mesh exposure. The time to recurrence of apical vault prolapse was shorter in women who had LSC with prior hysterectomy (p =0.019). No risk factors were identified for recurrence of apical vault prolapse.
Conclusions: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant hysterectomy is comparable with LSC alone. The recurrence and complication rates are low. We suggest that LSC with concomitant hysterectomy might be offered to women with pelvic organ prolapse, with women's preference taken into account.
(© 2022. The International Urogynecological Association.)
References: Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD012376.
Snyder TE, Krantz KE. Abdominal-retroperitoneal sacral colpopexy for the correction of vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;77(6):944–9.
Timmons MC, Addison WA, Addison SB, Cavenar MG. Abdominal sacral colpopexy in 163 women with posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse and enterocele. Evolution of operative techniques. J Reprod Med. 1992;37(4):323–7.
Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, et al. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med. 1999;44(8):679–84.
Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469–79. (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5)
Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:377. (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-012-1885-x)
Higgs A, Chua HL, Smith AR. Long term review of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. BJOG. 2005;112:1134–8. (PMID: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00646.x)
Chan CM, Liang HH, Go WW, To WW, Mok KM. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for uterine and post-hysterectomy prolapse: anatomical and functional outcomes. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(4):301–5.
Dallas K, Elliott CS, Syan R, Sohlberg E, Enemchukwu E, Rogo-Gupta L. Association between concomitant hysterectomy and repeat surgery for pelvic organ prolapse repair in a cohort of nearly 100,000 women. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:1328–36. (PMID: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002913)
Baines G, Price N, Jefferis H, Cartwright R, Jackson SR. Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(9):1475–81. (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-019-03952-7)
Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(4):360.e1. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016)
Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, Zyczynski HM, Nager CW, Norton PA, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(688):e1–5.
Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:205–12. (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-010-1265-3)
Maher C, Baessler K, Barber M, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A, (eds) 5th International Consultation on Incontinence. Paris: Health Publication. 2013.
Winkelman WD, Modest AM, Richardson ML. The surgical approach to abdominal sacrocolpopexy and concurrent hysterectomy: trends for the past decade. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27:e196–201. (PMID: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000891)
Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:527–35. (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-012-1726-y)
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:3. (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-010-1324-9)
Sarlos D, Kots L, Ryu G, Schaer G. Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1207–12. (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-014-2369-y)
Liang S, Zhu L, Song X, Xu T, Sun Z, Lang J. Long-term outcomes of modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for advanced pelvic organ prolapse: a 3-year prospective study. Menopause. 2016;23(7):765–70. (PMID: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000628)
Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3475-4 . (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-017-3475-4)
De Tayrac R, Sentilhes L. Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1859–72. (PMID: 10.1007/s00192-013-2177-9)
Warner WB, Vora S, Hurtado EA, Welgoss JA, Horbach NS, von Pechmann WS. Effect of operative technique on mesh exposure in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic MedReconstr Surg. 2012;18(2):113–7. (PMID: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318249bd54)
Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129–146.e2. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018)
Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149. (PMID: 10.1136/bmj.l5149)
فهرسة مساهمة: Keywords: Concomitant hysterectomy; Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy; Long-term follow-up; Surgical mesh; Treatment outcome
تواريخ الأحداث: Date Created: 20221117 Date Completed: 20230113 Latest Revision: 20230323
رمز التحديث: 20231215
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05403-2
PMID: 36394632
قاعدة البيانات: MEDLINE
الوصف
تدمد:1433-3023
DOI:10.1007/s00192-022-05403-2