A multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate mesh-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse
Tóm tắt
Hysterectomy is often part of pelvic organ prolapse repair. However, this may offer no benefit when compared to uterine preservation. We aimed to prospectively evaluate a minimally invasive bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy using polypropylene mesh. We hypothesized that anatomic success and patient satisfaction can be achieved with this technique. Women with uterovaginal prolapse desiring surgery who had completed childbearing were enrolled. Preoperative assessment included standardized prolapse examination and validated symptom and pain scale questionnaires. Women with prior pelvic organ prolapse repair or any contraindication to uterine preservation were excluded. Data including demographic, operative and postoperative information was collected on patients for 1 year following surgery. Continuous variables are summarized as means (standard deviation) and categorical variables are summarized as frequencies and percentages. A mixed-effects model was used to evaluate the changes in questionnaire scores and outcomes at 6 months and 12 months after surgery with random effects accounting for the center effect with adjustment for age. The study group comprised 99 women from three female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (urogynecology) centers. The average age of the participants was 67.0 years (11.32 years), BMI 26.04 kg/m2 (3.56 kg/m2), and the majority were multiparous (98.9 %) and menopausal (90.9 %). Overall success at 12 months, as measured by composite outcome was 97.7 % (with the Ba point as the anatomic landmark) and 96.6 % (with the C point as the anatomic landmark). The overall exposure rate was 6.52 % and reoperation rate was 7.53 %. All subjective questionnaire scores and anatomic outcomes had improved at 12 months. Sacrospinous hysteropexy using a minimally invasive polypropylene mesh kit is an effective and safe technique for addressing uterovaginal prolapse as an alternative to hysterectomy at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Wu JM, Wechter ME, Geller EJ, Nguyen TV, Visco AG (2007) Hysterectomy rates in the United States, 2003. Obstet Gynecol 110:1091–1095
Goldberg RP, Tomezsko JE, Winkler HE, Koduri S, Culligan PJ, Sand PK (2001) Anterior or posterior sacrospinous vaginal vault suspension: long-term anatomic and functional evaluation. Obstet Gynecol 92:199–204
Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K et al (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 110:455–462
Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH (1993) Successful pregnancies and vaginal deliveries after sacrospinous uterosacral fixation in five of nineteen patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 168:1778–1786
Hefni M, El-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E (2003) Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:645–650
Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack MC, Murray CJ, Milligan M, Schluter P (2001) Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:381–384
Van Brummen HJ, van de Pol G, Aalders CI, Heintz AP, van der Vaart CH (2003) Sacrospinous hysteropexy compared to vaginal hysterectomy as primary surgical treatment for a descensus uteri: effects on urinary symptoms. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14:350–355
Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graff Y, Heintz P, Schraffordt Koops SE (2010) One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J 21:209–216
Gamble T, Aschkenazi S, Nguyen A, Goldberg RP, Botros SM, Rivas V, Sand PK (2008) Bilateral, graft-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy, anatomic and functional outcomes at one year. J Pelvic Med Surg 14:213–352
Vu MK, Letko J, Jirschele K, Gafni-Kane A, Nguyen A, Du H et al (2012) Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 23:1753–1761
Altman D, Vayrynen T, Ellstrom Ehgh M, Axelsen S, Calconer C (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836
Dwyer PL, O’Reilly BA (2004) Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh. BJOG 111:831–836
Davila GW, Jijon A (2012) Managing vaginal mesh exposure/erosions. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 24:343–348
Khandwala S, Jayachandran C (2011) Transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse – Prolift + M: a prospective clinical trial. Int Urogynecol J 22:1405–1411
Achtari C, Hiscock R, O’Reilly BA, Schierlitz L, Dwyer PL (2005) Risk factors for mesh erosion after transvaginal surgery using polypropylene (Atrium) or composite polypropylene/polyglactin 910 (Vypro II) mesh. Int Urogynecol J 16:389–394
Gutman RE, Nosti PA, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Peterson JL, Wang H et al (2013) Three-year outcomes of vaginal mesh for prolapse a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 122:770–777
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004014