Lauren E Giugale, Kristine M Ruppert, Sruthi L Muluk, Stephanie M Glass Clark, Megan S Bradley, Jennifer M Wu, Catherine A Matthews
{"title":"微创全子宫切除术与宫颈上子宫切除术联合骶髋固定术的比较。","authors":"Lauren E Giugale, Kristine M Ruppert, Sruthi L Muluk, Stephanie M Glass Clark, Megan S Bradley, Jennifer M Wu, Catherine A Matthews","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Limited data exist comparing total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSCH) at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare TLH versus LSCH at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse, hypothesizing that LSCH would demonstrate a higher proportion of recurrent prolapse, but a lower proportion of mesh exposures.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This was a retrospective, secondary analysis comparing a prospective cohort of patients undergoing TLH sacrocolpopexy versus a retrospective cohort of patients who had undergone LSCH sacrocolpopexy. Our primary outcome was composite anatomic pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (prolapse beyond hymen, apical descent > half vaginal length, retreatment). Secondary outcomes included vaginal mesh exposures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 733 procedures: 184 (25.1%) TLH sacrocolpopexy and 549 (74.9%) LSCH sacrocolpopexy. Median follow-up was longer in the TLH cohort (369 [IQR 354-386] vs 190 [IQR 63-362] days, P < 0.01). There was no difference in composite prolapse recurrence between groups on bivariable analysis (3.3% vs 4.7%, P = 0.40). However, multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that TLH sacrocolpopexy had lower odds of composite pelvic organ prolapse recurrence than LSCH sacrocolpopexy (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.82, P = 0.02). Among procedures with lightweight mesh types, TLH demonstrated a higher proportion of mesh exposures compared to LSCH (10 [5.4%] vs 4 [1.1%], P < 0.01); however, this was not significant after controlling for confounders (OR 4.51, 95% CI 0.88-39.25, P = 0.08). There were no differences in retreatment or reoperation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse, both TLH and LSCH are acceptable methods of concomitant hysterectomy at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy, albeit with likely different risk profiles.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":"30 10","pages":"814-820"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally Invasive Total Versus Supracervical Hysterectomy With Sacrocolpopexy.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren E Giugale, Kristine M Ruppert, Sruthi L Muluk, Stephanie M Glass Clark, Megan S Bradley, Jennifer M Wu, Catherine A Matthews\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001530\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Limited data exist comparing total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSCH) at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare TLH versus LSCH at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse, hypothesizing that LSCH would demonstrate a higher proportion of recurrent prolapse, but a lower proportion of mesh exposures.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This was a retrospective, secondary analysis comparing a prospective cohort of patients undergoing TLH sacrocolpopexy versus a retrospective cohort of patients who had undergone LSCH sacrocolpopexy. Our primary outcome was composite anatomic pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (prolapse beyond hymen, apical descent > half vaginal length, retreatment). Secondary outcomes included vaginal mesh exposures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 733 procedures: 184 (25.1%) TLH sacrocolpopexy and 549 (74.9%) LSCH sacrocolpopexy. Median follow-up was longer in the TLH cohort (369 [IQR 354-386] vs 190 [IQR 63-362] days, P < 0.01). There was no difference in composite prolapse recurrence between groups on bivariable analysis (3.3% vs 4.7%, P = 0.40). However, multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that TLH sacrocolpopexy had lower odds of composite pelvic organ prolapse recurrence than LSCH sacrocolpopexy (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.82, P = 0.02). Among procedures with lightweight mesh types, TLH demonstrated a higher proportion of mesh exposures compared to LSCH (10 [5.4%] vs 4 [1.1%], P < 0.01); however, this was not significant after controlling for confounders (OR 4.51, 95% CI 0.88-39.25, P = 0.08). There were no differences in retreatment or reoperation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse, both TLH and LSCH are acceptable methods of concomitant hysterectomy at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy, albeit with likely different risk profiles.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)\",\"volume\":\"30 10\",\"pages\":\"814-820\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001530\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001530","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
重要性:腹腔镜全子宫切除术(TLH)与腹腔镜宫颈上子宫切除术(LSCH)在微创骶阴道固定术治疗子宫阴道脱垂时的比较资料有限。目的:本研究的目的是比较微创骶阴道固定术治疗子宫阴道脱垂时TLH与LSCH的差异,假设LSCH的复发脱垂比例较高,但补片暴露比例较低。研究设计:这是一项回顾性的二级分析,比较了TLH骶髋固定术患者的前瞻性队列与LSCH骶髋固定术患者的回顾性队列。我们的主要结果是复合性解剖盆腔器官脱垂复发(脱垂超过处女膜,根尖下降超过阴道长度的一半,再治疗)。次要结果包括阴道网片暴露。结果:共有733例手术,其中TLH骶髋固定术184例(25.1%),LSCH骶髋固定术549例(74.9%)。TLH组的中位随访时间更长(369 [IQR 354-386]天和190 [IQR 63-362]天,P < 0.01)。双变量分析两组间复合脱垂复发率无差异(3.3% vs 4.7%, P = 0.40)。然而,多变量logistic回归分析显示,TLH骶colpopexy复合盆腔器官脱垂复发的几率低于LSCH骶colpopexy (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 ~ 0.82, P = 0.02)。在使用轻型网片类型的手术中,TLH比LSCH显示出更高的网片暴露比例(10[5.4%]比4 [1.1%],P < 0.01);然而,在控制混杂因素后,这并不显著(OR 4.51, 95% CI 0.88-39.25, P = 0.08)。两组再治疗和再手术无明显差异。结论:对于子宫阴道脱垂的治疗,TLH和LSCH都是微创骶阴道固定术同时进行子宫切除术的可接受方法,尽管它们的风险可能不同。
Minimally Invasive Total Versus Supracervical Hysterectomy With Sacrocolpopexy.
Importance: Limited data exist comparing total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSCH) at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare TLH versus LSCH at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse, hypothesizing that LSCH would demonstrate a higher proportion of recurrent prolapse, but a lower proportion of mesh exposures.
Study design: This was a retrospective, secondary analysis comparing a prospective cohort of patients undergoing TLH sacrocolpopexy versus a retrospective cohort of patients who had undergone LSCH sacrocolpopexy. Our primary outcome was composite anatomic pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (prolapse beyond hymen, apical descent > half vaginal length, retreatment). Secondary outcomes included vaginal mesh exposures.
Results: There were 733 procedures: 184 (25.1%) TLH sacrocolpopexy and 549 (74.9%) LSCH sacrocolpopexy. Median follow-up was longer in the TLH cohort (369 [IQR 354-386] vs 190 [IQR 63-362] days, P < 0.01). There was no difference in composite prolapse recurrence between groups on bivariable analysis (3.3% vs 4.7%, P = 0.40). However, multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that TLH sacrocolpopexy had lower odds of composite pelvic organ prolapse recurrence than LSCH sacrocolpopexy (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.82, P = 0.02). Among procedures with lightweight mesh types, TLH demonstrated a higher proportion of mesh exposures compared to LSCH (10 [5.4%] vs 4 [1.1%], P < 0.01); however, this was not significant after controlling for confounders (OR 4.51, 95% CI 0.88-39.25, P = 0.08). There were no differences in retreatment or reoperation.
Conclusion: For the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse, both TLH and LSCH are acceptable methods of concomitant hysterectomy at the time of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy, albeit with likely different risk profiles.