International urogynecology journal · 2020
Vaginal intraperitoneal versus extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament vault suspensions: a comparison of a standard and novel approach.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Mounir Danny, Vasquez-Tran Nyla O, Lindo Fiona M, Antosh Danielle D, Muir Tristi W
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uterosacral ligament suspension surgery is commonly utilized to correct post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (VVP). Vaginal intraperitoneal uterosacral vault suspension (IUSVS) is a viable option, but intraperitoneal access can be challenging. An alternative approach is an extraperitoneal uterosacral vault suspension (EUSVS). The aim of our study was to compare surgical outcomes of IUSVS and EUSVS in patients with post-hysterectomy VVP.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of women who underwent treatment of post-hysterectomy VVP with an IUSVS and EUSVS from May 2016 to January 2019 at our institution. The primary outcome was surgical success that was assessed by a composite outcome for surgical failure, defined as ANY of the following: (1) apical descent > 1/3 of the TVL or anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen, (2) retreatment of prolapse, or (3) bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms with a positive response to either of two questions on the PFDI questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included EBL, operative time, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative complications. Two-sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used for the bivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Eighty patients were included (36 IUSVS and 44 EUSVS) with a mean follow-up of 7 months. For our primary outcome, there was no difference in surgical success (IUSVS group 72.22% vs. EUSVS group 81.82%, p = 0.307). Operative time, duration of hospitalization, and EBL were significantly less in the EUSVS group than in the IUSVS group.
CONCLUSIONS: EUSVS demonstrated similar short-term success compared to IUSVS for post-hysterectomy VVP, with shorter operative time, EBL, and length of stay.
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of women who underwent treatment of post-hysterectomy VVP with an IUSVS and EUSVS from May 2016 to January 2019 at our institution. The primary outcome was surgical success that was assessed by a composite outcome for surgical failure, defined as ANY of the following: (1) apical descent > 1/3 of the TVL or anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen, (2) retreatment of prolapse, or (3) bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms with a positive response to either of two questions on the PFDI questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included EBL, operative time, duration of hospitalization, and perioperative complications. Two-sample t-tests and chi-square tests were used for the bivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Eighty patients were included (36 IUSVS and 44 EUSVS) with a mean follow-up of 7 months. For our primary outcome, there was no difference in surgical success (IUSVS group 72.22% vs. EUSVS group 81.82%, p = 0.307). Operative time, duration of hospitalization, and EBL were significantly less in the EUSVS group than in the IUSVS group.
CONCLUSIONS: EUSVS demonstrated similar short-term success compared to IUSVS for post-hysterectomy VVP, with shorter operative time, EBL, and length of stay.