These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse.
    Author: Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, Rumolo V, Caramazza D, Lombisani A, Rossitto C, Gadonneix P, Scambia G, Ercoli A.
    Journal: Int Urogynecol J; 2022 Feb; 33(2):359-368. PubMed ID: 34132865.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]