Laparoscopic mesh sacr ocolpopexy versus lateral vaginal vault suspension in prevention of post hysterectomy vault prolapse: a randomized trial.

IF 1.9 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Mostafa Hussein Haider, Ahmed Salah Abo Elagha
{"title":"Laparoscopic mesh sacr ocolpopexy versus lateral vaginal vault suspension in prevention of post hysterectomy vault prolapse: a randomized trial.","authors":"Mostafa Hussein Haider, Ahmed Salah Abo Elagha","doi":"10.5468/ogs.25092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS) for preventing post hysterectomy vault prolapse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized trial included 40 women who were scheduled for a hysterectomy. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio: group I underwent LSC immediately after hysterectomy, and group II (n=20) underwent LLS immediately after hysterectomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurements (anterior vaginal points Aa and Ba, vaginal apex point C, and posterior vaginal points AP and BP) were significantly better in the LSC group, with a lower rate of postoperative vault prolapse beyond the introitus (P=0.047). Both groups showed similar estimated blood loss, urinary tract infection, wound infection, and urinary retention rates. However, LSC was associated with significantly higher postoperative pain scores at 24 hours and 48 hours and a longer hospital stay (P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although LSC demonstrated more favorable anatomical outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative vault prolapse beyond the introitus than LLS, these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size. Both procedures showed comparable safety profiles, although the LSC was associated with greater postoperative pain and longer hospitalization times. Given the study's exploratory design, small cohort, and short follow-up period, further large-scale multicenter studies are needed to confirm these preliminary observations and to better inform clinical practice regarding the optimal surgical approach for preventing post hysterectomy vault prolapse.</p>","PeriodicalId":37602,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynecology Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and Gynecology Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.25092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and laparoscopic lateral suspension (LLS) for preventing post hysterectomy vault prolapse.

Methods: This randomized trial included 40 women who were scheduled for a hysterectomy. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio: group I underwent LSC immediately after hysterectomy, and group II (n=20) underwent LLS immediately after hysterectomy.

Results: Postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurements (anterior vaginal points Aa and Ba, vaginal apex point C, and posterior vaginal points AP and BP) were significantly better in the LSC group, with a lower rate of postoperative vault prolapse beyond the introitus (P=0.047). Both groups showed similar estimated blood loss, urinary tract infection, wound infection, and urinary retention rates. However, LSC was associated with significantly higher postoperative pain scores at 24 hours and 48 hours and a longer hospital stay (P<0.05).

Conclusion: Although LSC demonstrated more favorable anatomical outcomes and a lower incidence of postoperative vault prolapse beyond the introitus than LLS, these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the limited sample size. Both procedures showed comparable safety profiles, although the LSC was associated with greater postoperative pain and longer hospitalization times. Given the study's exploratory design, small cohort, and short follow-up period, further large-scale multicenter studies are needed to confirm these preliminary observations and to better inform clinical practice regarding the optimal surgical approach for preventing post hysterectomy vault prolapse.

腹腔镜网状骶骨固定与阴道外侧拱顶悬吊预防子宫切除术后拱顶脱垂:一项随机试验。
目的:比较腹腔镜下补片骶colpop固定术(LSC)与腹腔镜下外侧悬吊术(LLS)预防子宫切除术后穹窿脱垂的效果。方法:这项随机试验包括40名计划进行子宫切除术的妇女。将患者按1:1的比例随机分为两组:I组在子宫切除术后立即行LSC, II组(n=20)在子宫切除术后立即行LLS。结果:LSC组术后盆腔脏器脱垂量化测量(阴道前点Aa、Ba、阴道尖点C、阴道后点AP、BP)明显优于LSC组,术后弓顶脱垂率低于LSC组(P=0.047)。两组的估计失血量、尿路感染、伤口感染和尿潴留率相似。然而,LSC与术后24小时和48小时的疼痛评分和更长的住院时间相关(结论:尽管LSC比LLS表现出更有利的解剖结果和更低的术后弓顶脱垂发生率,但由于样本量有限,这些发现应谨慎解释。尽管LSC与更大的术后疼痛和更长的住院时间相关,但两种手术均显示出相当的安全性。考虑到该研究的探索性设计、小队列和短随访期,需要进一步的大规模多中心研究来证实这些初步观察结果,并更好地为临床实践提供关于预防子宫切除术后拱顶脱垂的最佳手术方法的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Obstetrics and Gynecology Science
Obstetrics and Gynecology Science Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
15.80%
发文量
58
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Obstetrics & Gynecology Science (NLM title: Obstet Gynecol Sci) is an international peer-review journal that published basic, translational, clinical research, and clinical practice guideline to promote women’s health and prevent obstetric and gynecologic disorders. The journal has an international editorial board and is published in English on the 15th day of every other month. Submitted manuscripts should not contain previously published material and should not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. The journal has been publishing articles since 1958. The aim of the journal is to publish original articles, reviews, case reports, short communications, letters to the editor, and video articles that have the potential to change the practices in women''s health care. The journal’s main focus is the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetric and gynecologic disorders. Because the life expectancy of Korean and Asian women is increasing, the journal''s editors are particularly interested in the health of elderly women in these population groups. The journal also publishes articles about reproductive biology, stem cell research, and artificial intelligence research for women; additionally, it provides insights into the physiology and mechanisms of obstetric and gynecologic diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信