Skip to main content
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal 2/2022

16.06.2021 | Original Article

Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse

verfasst von: Giuseppe Campagna, Lorenzo Vacca, Giovanni Panico, Valerio Rumolo, Daniela Caramazza, Andrea Lombisani, Cristiano Rossitto, Pierre Gadonneix, Giovanni Scambia, Alfredo Ercoli

Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The choice of whether or not to preserve the uterus in the case of patients with urogenital prolapse who undergo sacral colpopexy is still debated. We compared objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy (LSHP) and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy (LSCP/SCH) in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.

Methods

This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study conducted at the Urogynecology Department of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS of Rome and at the Diaconesses Croix Saint Simon Hospital of Paris. We collected data of 136 patients; 78 underwent LSHP and 58 underwent LSCP/SCH for pelvic organ prolapse between January 2016 and December 2017.

Results

Patients of the two groups had similar preoperative characteristics. All patients completed 24-month follow-up evaluation. Overall, anatomical cure rate was 84.6% and 87.9% in the LSHP group and LSCP/SCH group, respectively, without statistically significant differences. In particular, in the LSHP group the anatomical success rate was 94.9%, 92.3% and 92.3% for the apical, anterior and posterior vaginal compartment whereas in the LSHP group LSCP/SCH was 100%, 91.4% and 94.8%, respectively. Subjective success rate was 89.7% among patients who underwent LSHP and 93.1% among women who underwent LSCP/SCH (p = 0.494). The median operative time (OT) was significantly shorter in LSHP. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of estimated blood loss, conversion to laparotomy and intra- and postoperative complications. Patients’ satisfaction was high in both groups without statistical differences.

Conclusions

Both laparoscopic procedures are safe and effective in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. LSHP can be offered as an alternative in women who are strongly motivated to preserve the uterus in the absence of abnormal uterine findings.
Literatur
6.
Zurück zum Zitat 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(10):CD012376. 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(10):CD012376.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1726-y.CrossRefPubMed Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, 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. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00192-012-1726-y.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse
verfasst von
Giuseppe Campagna
Lorenzo Vacca
Giovanni Panico
Valerio Rumolo
Daniela Caramazza
Andrea Lombisani
Cristiano Rossitto
Pierre Gadonneix
Giovanni Scambia
Alfredo Ercoli
Publikationsdatum
16.06.2021
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
International Urogynecology Journal / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04865-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2022

International Urogynecology Journal 2/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.