To compare anatomic and clinical cure rates as well as patient satisfaction between uterine-preserving laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with apical and anterior prolapse. Design: Single-center clinical comparative retrospective cohort study. Setting: A female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery service at a tertiary teaching hospital. Patients: Women with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent surgical treatment for their condition between July 2010 and December 2015. Interventions: All women underwent laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension or total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for apical and anterior prolapse. Concomitant procedures included anterior and posterior repair, as well as a midurethral sling when indicated. Measurements and Main Results: Preoperative and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measurements were obtained. The primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Secondary outcomes included anatomic cure rate and outcomes of site-specific POP-Q points Ba, C, and Bp for the whole cohort. Patient satisfaction was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire. During the study period, 106 women underwent transvaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, and 53 women had laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension. At a mean follow-up of 14.7 § 13.23 months for the vaginal group and 17.5 § 15.84 months for the laparoscopic group (p = .29), there were significant improvements of POP-Q points Ba, C, and Bp (p < .0001 for all comparisons in both groups). The clinical cure rate was 96% in the vaginal group and 98% in the laparoscopic group (p = .50). The anatomic cure rate was 85.4% in the vaginal group and 93.75% in the laparoscopic group (p = .11) Patient satisfaction was high in both groups. Conclusion: In appropriately selected patients, laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension is a valid uterus-preserving option for women with anterior and apical prolapse, associated with high anatomic and clinical cure rates and patient satisfaction.
Background Uterine leiomyomas are often discovered during early pregnancy and in most cases will have no effect on pregnancy outcomes. However, in rare cases uterine leiomyomas may lead to obstetric complications. The aim of the study was to evaluate rate of uterine leiomyoma growth in the 3 trimesters of pregnancy. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Included were women who were diagnosed with uterine leiomyoma during pregnancy and had at least two sonographic measurements in different trimesters. Data regarding leiomyoma growth, recorded by ultrasound examination, during 1st 2nd and 3rd trimesters were collected from electronic patient records. Results Two-hundred forty-eight uterine leiomyomas were included in the study. Leiomyoma area increased substantially in size between the 1st and 2nd trimesters (54.5% ± 75.9%, p = .007) and to a lesser degree between the 2nd and 3rd trimesters (17.9% ± 59.7%, NS). Evaluation of the change in size throughout the pregnancy – between 1st and 3rd trimesters revealed a significant increase of 95.9% ± 191.3% ( p < .001). There was no significant growth of the leiomyomas between the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Conclusions Uterine leiomyomas tend to grow substantially during the 1st trimester of pregnancy. This trend is attenuated later with minimal growth towards the end of gestation.
Background COVID-19 during pregnancy is associated with adverse outcomes for mother and fetus. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination has significantly reduced the risk of symptomatic disease. Several small studies have reported the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy, with no adverse effect on obstetric outcomes. Objective To examine the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination during pregnancy and maternal and neonatal outcomes in a large cohort study. Furthermore, to evaluate if timing of vaccination during pregnancy is related to adverse outcomes. Methods A retrospective cohort study of women who delivered between December 2020 and July 2021 at a large tertiary medical center. Excluded were women with multiple pregnancy, vaccination prior to pregnancy, COVID-19 infection during or before pregnancy, or unknown timing of vaccination. Primary outcomes were the incidence of preterm labor and of small for gestational age. Secondary outcomes were other maternal and neonatal complications. A secondary analysis investigating the association between time of vaccination and outcomes was also performed. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to adjust for potential confounders. Results There were 5618 women who met the inclusion criteria: 2,305 (41%) women were vaccinated and 3,313 (59%) were unvaccinated. There were no differences between vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients with respect to primary outcomes. The rate of preterm birth was 5.5% in the vaccinated group compared to 6.2% in the unvaccinated group (p = 0.31). Likewise, the rates of small for gestational age were comparable between the two groups (6.2% vs. 7.0% respectively, p = 0.2). In a secondary analysis focusing on time of vaccination and its relationship with outcomes, patients vaccinated in the second trimester (n = 964) and in the third trimester (n = 1329) were independently compared to their unvaccinated counterparts. Women who were vaccinated in the second trimester were more likely to have a preterm birth (8.1% vs. 6.2%, p < 0.001). This association persisted after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted odds ratio 1.49, 95%CI 1.11, 2.01). Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 vaccine appears to be safe during pregnancy with no increase in incidence of preterm labor and small for gestational age compared to unvaccinated women. However, in women vaccinated during the second trimester there may be an increase in the rate of preterm birth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.