Apical Support After Benign Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Vaginal Cuff Closure Techniques.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
International Urogynecology Journal Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-21 DOI:10.1007/s00192-026-06609-4
Kathryn A Edmonds, Christine M Vaccaro, Candice E Jones-Cox, Katherine L Dengler, Thuan H Le, Scott P Endicott
{"title":"Apical Support After Benign Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Vaginal Cuff Closure Techniques.","authors":"Kathryn A Edmonds, Christine M Vaccaro, Candice E Jones-Cox, Katherine L Dengler, Thuan H Le, Scott P Endicott","doi":"10.1007/s00192-026-06609-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The route of vaginal cuff closure after laparoscopic hysterectomy has not been standardized. This study was designed to compare pelvic floor support after vaginal or laparoscopic cuff closure. The authors hypothesized that laparoscopic closure would be superior.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This randomized controlled trial included women undergoing a benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Exclusion criteria included concurrent prolapse procedure, malignancy, and a pelvic organ prolapse quantitation system (POPQ) point C greater than -4. Preoperative POPQ exams were performed by blinded Urogynecologists. Patients were randomized to vaginal or laparoscopic cuff closure on the day of surgery. POPQ exams were repeated by blinded Urogynecologists at 6-8 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. Using a corrected alpha of 0.05 and power 0.8 to detect a 1.75 cm difference, the required sample size was 62 with 31 patients per group. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared or Fisher exact tests. Continuous variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-seven patients were enrolled. Forty-four patients completed 6-8 week follow-up, and 33 patients were evaluated at 1 year. The calculated sample size was not obtained as patient enrollment and retention were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The mean difference of point C between laparoscopic and vaginal closure was 0.98 cm and 1.24 cm, respectively, at 6-8 weeks (p = .55), and 1.22 cm and 1.63 cm, respectively, at 1 year (p = .48). Mean differences for all other POPQ exam points and complication rates were nonsignificant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For up to 1 year postop, there is no significant difference in apical support when comparing laparoscopic to vaginal cuff closure.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":"2799-2806"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-026-06609-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: The route of vaginal cuff closure after laparoscopic hysterectomy has not been standardized. This study was designed to compare pelvic floor support after vaginal or laparoscopic cuff closure. The authors hypothesized that laparoscopic closure would be superior.

Methods: This randomized controlled trial included women undergoing a benign total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Exclusion criteria included concurrent prolapse procedure, malignancy, and a pelvic organ prolapse quantitation system (POPQ) point C greater than -4. Preoperative POPQ exams were performed by blinded Urogynecologists. Patients were randomized to vaginal or laparoscopic cuff closure on the day of surgery. POPQ exams were repeated by blinded Urogynecologists at 6-8 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. Using a corrected alpha of 0.05 and power 0.8 to detect a 1.75 cm difference, the required sample size was 62 with 31 patients per group. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-squared or Fisher exact tests. Continuous variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test.

Results: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled. Forty-four patients completed 6-8 week follow-up, and 33 patients were evaluated at 1 year. The calculated sample size was not obtained as patient enrollment and retention were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The mean difference of point C between laparoscopic and vaginal closure was 0.98 cm and 1.24 cm, respectively, at 6-8 weeks (p = .55), and 1.22 cm and 1.63 cm, respectively, at 1 year (p = .48). Mean differences for all other POPQ exam points and complication rates were nonsignificant.

Conclusions: For up to 1 year postop, there is no significant difference in apical support when comparing laparoscopic to vaginal cuff closure.

良性腹腔镜子宫切除术后的根尖支持:一项比较阴道袖带闭合技术的随机对照试验。
引言与假设:腹腔镜子宫切除术后阴道袖带闭合路径尚未规范。本研究旨在比较阴道或腹腔镜袖带闭合后的盆底支撑。作者假设腹腔镜缝合会更好。方法:这项随机对照试验包括接受良性腹腔镜全子宫切除术的妇女。排除标准包括并发脱垂手术、恶性肿瘤和盆腔器官脱垂定量系统(POPQ) C点大于-4。术前POPQ检查由盲法泌尿妇科医生进行。患者在手术当天随机选择阴道或腹腔镜袖带闭合。在术后6-8周和1年由盲法泌尿妇科医生重复POPQ检查。使用校正的alpha值0.05和功率0.8来检测1.75厘米的差异,所需的样本量为62,每组31例患者。使用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验比较分类变量。采用双尾t检验比较连续变量。结果:57例患者入组。44例患者完成6-8周随访,33例患者1年随访。由于患者入组和保留受到COVID-19大流行的影响,无法获得计算样本量。在6-8周时,腹腔镜和阴道闭合的C点平均差值分别为0.98 cm和1.24 cm (p =。55), 1年时分别为1.22 cm和1.63 cm (p = .48)。所有其他POPQ检查点和并发症发生率的平均差异无统计学意义。结论:对于术后1年,比较腹腔镜和阴道袖带闭合时,根尖支持没有显著差异。
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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
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
小红书