Risk factors of surgical failure following sacrospinous colpopexy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse

Qatawneh, Ayman; Thekrallah, Fida; Bata, Majed; Alkazaleh, Fawaz; Almustafa, Mahmoud; Abu-kader, Ilham

doi:10.1007/s00404-012-2685-8

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have reported anatomic success rates of 77–94% after monolateral SF in smaller cohorts of VVP first recurrence [ 24 – 26 ]. Several authors [ 27 – 29 ] have described 10%–30% anterior support defects after sacrospinous fixation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transvaginal Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation after Second Recurrence of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Efficacy and Impact on Quality of Life and Sexuality

Vitale

Laganà

Noventa

et al. 2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Our aim was to study the efficacy of transvaginal bilateral sacrospinous fixation (TBSF) and its impact on quality of life (QoL) and sexual functions in women affected by second recurrences of vaginal vault prolapse (VVP). Materials and Methods We performed a prospective observational study on 20 sexually active patients affected by second recurrence of VVP, previously treated with monolateral sacrospinous fixation. TBSF was performed in all the patients. They had been evaluated before the surgery and at 12-month follow-up through pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system, Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Results At 12-month follow-up, 18 out of 20 (90%) patients were cured of their recurrent VVP. No major intra- and postoperative complications occurred. We found a significant improvement in 4/5 POP-Q landmarks (excluding total vaginal length), SF-36, and PISQ-12 scores. Conclusion According to our data analysis, TBSF appears to be safe, effective, and able to improve both QoL and sexual functions in patients affected by second recurrence of VVP after previous monolateral sacrospinous fixation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transvaginal Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation after Second Recurrence of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Efficacy and Impact on Quality of Life and Sexuality

Vitale

Laganà

Noventa

et al. 2018

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This high recurrence could be explained by the deviation in vaginal axis caused by unilateral stitch placement or due to damage to neurovascular support . Non‐placement of anterior mesh is another risk factor and a Cochrane review proposed that use of mesh or graft at anterior colporaphy may reduce the risk of anterior prolapse . Six of our women in the SSHP group with recurrent cystocele had concomitant anterior repair and cannot be considered as de novo cystoceles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…These discrepant findings may be attributed to heterogeneity among the studied women, variable definitions of failure and potential differences in the concerned compartment in which failure was described . In some studies, women with preoperative stage 3 or 4 were not included, since this was considered a risk for surgical failure . Lin et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy vs. Uterosacral Suspension for the Treatment of Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Assessment

Al‐Badr¹,

Perveen²,

Al‐Shaikh

2015

LUTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This single-center retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy with utero-sacral suspension (VH/USS) versus sacro-spinous hysteropexy (SSHP) in the management of uterine prolapse at a tertiary care center specializing in Urogynecology. Methods: The medical records of 50 women with stage 2 or more uterine prolapse treated with VH/USS (n = 26) or SSHP (n = 24) were assessed between January 2006 and December 2012. Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of body mass index (BMI) and parity P = 0.881 and 0.304, respectively. VH/USS procedure was significantly more successful than SSHP procedure with regard to anatomical success (84.62 vs. 41.67%, P = 0.0028). There was a significantly higher anterior prolapse recurrence with SSHP procedure than with VH/USS (33.3 vs. 7.7%; P = 0.034). SSHP was associated with the lower likelihood of anatomical success and a higher risk of recurrent anterior prolapse in multivariate logistic regression analyzes adjusting for potential confounders. Conclusion:The findings of this retrospective study indicate that SSHP appears to be associated with less anatomical objective success and an increased risk of recurrent anterior prolapse in comparison to VH/USS. Further validation of our observations by independent investigators is required.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, indirect data for the posterior compartment are available from randomized trials of patients with multicompartment prolapse, where restoration of apical support was the primary outcome. Τhe 2016 Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis [18] summarized the results of three trials [40–42] of apical prolapse repairs, with optional concomitant anterior/posterior repairs, where follow-up data on the posterior compartment were reported. Data showed no statistically or clinically significant difference in objective failure rates in the posterior compartment between mesh and no mesh repairs of multicompartment prolapse: failure rate was 7.4% (8 of 107 repairs) with mesh repairs compared to 11.7% (14 of 119 repairs) with native tissue repairs ( p = 0.92).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasons for and Against Use of Non-absorbable, Synthetic Mesh During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair, According to the Prolapsed Compartment

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Awareness and reporting of mesh-related complications of pelvic organ prolapse repairs have increased in recent years. As a result, deciding whether to use a mesh or not has become a difficult task for urogynecologists. Our aim was to summarize reasons for and against the use of mesh in prolapse repair based on a review of relevant literature. Scopus and PubMed databases were searched for papers reporting on the efficacy and safety of native tissue versus non-absorbable, synthetic mesh prolapse repairs. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included. Evidence is presented for each vaginal compartment separately. In the anterior compartment, mesh repairs seem to offer clearly superior efficacy and durability of results compared to native tissue repairs, but with an equally clear increase in complication rates. In the isolated posterior compartment prolapse, high-quality evidence is sparse. As far as the apical compartment is concerned, sacrocolpopexy is the most efficacious, yet the most invasive procedure. Data on the comparison of transvaginal mesh versus native tissue repairs of the apical compartment are somewhat ambiguous. Given the inevitable coexistence of advantages and disadvantages of mesh use in each of the prolapsed vaginal compartments, an individualized treatment decision, based on weighing risks against benefits for each patient, seems to be the most rational approach.

show abstract

Risk factors of surgical failure following sacrospinous colpopexy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse

Abstract: The presence of advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse, prior vaginal repair and a lack of mesh augmentation of the anterior compartment are significant risk factors for the surgical failure of sacrospinous suspension surgery.

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Transvaginal Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation after Second Recurrence of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Efficacy and Impact on Quality of Life and Sexuality

Transvaginal Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation after Second Recurrence of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Efficacy and Impact on Quality of Life and Sexuality

Evaluation of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy vs. Uterosacral Suspension for the Treatment of Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Assessment

Reasons for and Against Use of Non-absorbable, Synthetic Mesh During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair, According to the Prolapsed Compartment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About