Anzeige
Erschienen in:
01.04.2015 | Original Article
Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 4/2015
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Optimal management of the cervix at the time of hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy for primary uterovaginal prolapse is unknown. Our hypothesis was that recurrent prolapse at 1 year would be more likely after a supracervical robotic hysterectomy (SRH) compared with a total robotic hysterectomy (TRH) at the time of robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) for uterovaginal prolapse.
Methods
This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 83 women who underwent hysterectomy with RSCP over a 24-month period (40 with TRH and 43 with SRH). At 1 year post-procedure, subjects completed validated questionnaires regarding pelvic floor symptoms, sexual function, and global satisfaction, and underwent a pelvic examination to identify mesh exposure and evaluate pelvic floor support.
Results
Demographics of the two groups were similar, except for a higher mean body mass index in the TRH group (31.9 TRH vs 25.8 SRH kg/m2, p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent prolapse ≥ stage II was higher for women who underwent SRH compared with TRH (41.9 % vs 20.0 %, p = 0.03; OR 2.8, 95 % CI, 1.07–7.7). However, when this was analyzed as recurrence ≥ hymen, there was no difference between groups (12.5 % TRH vs 18.6 % SRH, p = 0.45). Likewise, there was no difference between groups when a composite measure of success was used (30 out of 40 [75 %] TRH vs 29 out of 43 [67.4 %] SRH, p = 0.45).
Conclusions
Women who underwent an SRH were 2.8 times more likely to have a recurrent prolapse, ≥ stage II, at 1 year, compared with those who underwent a TRH, but when composite assessment scores were used there was no difference between the groups.