ImportanceComparing one-year surgical outcomes of two widely used surgical procedures for apical suspension.ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to compare anatomic outcomes after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension (vUSLS).Study DesignThis was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study through the Fellows' Pelvic Research Network. Patients with ≥ stage II pelvic organ prolapse (POP) who underwent MISC or vUSLS from January 2013 to January 2016, identified through the Current Procedural Terminology codes, with 1 year or longer postoperative data were included. Patients with prior POP surgery or history of connective tissue disorders were excluded. Anatomic success was defined as Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System measurements: Ba/Bp ≤ 0 or C ≤ -TVL/2. Data were compared using χ2 or Fisher exact tests. Continuous data were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.ResultsThree hundred thirty-seven patients underwent MISC (171 laparoscopic, 166 robotic) and 165 underwent vUSLS. The MISC group had longer operative time (205.9 minutes vs 187.5 minutes, P = 0.006) and lower blood loss (77.8 mL vs 187.4 mL; P < 0.001). Two patients (0.6%) in the MISC group had mesh exposure requiring surgical excision. Permanent suture exposure was higher after vUSLS (6.1%). At 1 year, anatomic success was comparable in the apical (322 [97%] MISC vs 160 [97%] vUSLS, P = 0.99) and posterior compartments (326 [97.6%] MISC vs 164 [99.4%] vUSLS; P = 0.28). Anterior compartment success was higher in the MISC group (328 [97.9%] vs 156 [94.9%], P = 0.04) along with longer total vaginal length (9.2 ± 1.8 vs 8.4 ± 1.5, P < 0.001).ConclusionAt 1 year, patients who underwent MISC or vUSLS had similar apical support. Low rates of mesh and suture exposures, less anterior recurrence, and longer TVL were noted after MISC.
Objectives The primary objective was to compare levels of satisfaction, regret, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores between women who underwent vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP). Secondary objectives were to identify which preoperative counseling resources were most useful. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study through the Fellows’ Pelvic Research Network that included women who underwent a USLS or SCP between January 2013 and January 2016 with 1-year follow-up. Women completed the Decision Regret Scale for Pelvic Floor Disorders, Satisfaction with Decision Scale for Pelvic Floor Disorders, and PGI-I. Data were also collected on usefulness of various educational preoperative resources. Results A total of 175/367 (47.6%) women participated; 45 (25.7%) and 130 (74.3%) in the USLS and SCP groups, respectively. Mean Decision Scale for Pelvic Floor Disorders scores were 4.6 ± 0.8 and 4.5 ± 0.7 (P = 0.30) in the USLS and SCP groups, respectively, indicating a high level of satisfaction with surgical decision. The mean Decision Regret Scale for Pelvic Floor Disorders score was 1.5 ± 0.8 in USLS and 1.6 ± 0.8 in SCP (P = 0.53). The SCP group had higher PGI-I scores (1.7 ± 1.4 vs 2.0 ± 1.3, P = 0.02), indicating lower perceived postoperative improvement. Most women (151 [86.3%] of 175) reported that verbal counseling was sufficient and would not have found additional resources helpful. Conclusions Women have high satisfaction and low regret with their decision to pursue surgical correction with USLS or SCP. Most are satisfied with only verbal preoperative counseling.
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.