JAMA · 2023
Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеEquivalence TrialСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Enklaar Rosa A, Schulten Sascha F M, van Eijndhoven Hugo W F, Weemhoff Mirjam, van Leijsen Sanne A L, van der Weide Marijke C, van Bavel Jeroen, Verkleij-Hagoort Anna C, Adang Eddy M M, Kluivers Kirsten B, SAM Study Group
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: In many countries, sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most commonly practiced uterus-preserving technique in women undergoing a first operation for pelvic organ prolapse. However, there are no direct comparisons of outcomes after sacrospinous hysteropexy vs an older technique, the Manchester procedure.
OBJECTIVE: To compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications.
RESULTS: Among 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of -9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: TrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978.
OBJECTIVE: To compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen.
INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications.
RESULTS: Among 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of -9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: TrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978.