Author:
Stoter Lisa M.,Notten Kim J. B.,Claas Marieke,Tijsseling Deodata,Ruefli Maud,van den Tillaart Femke,van Kuijk Sander M. J.,Milani Alfredo L.,Kluivers Kristin B.
Abstract
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Patient-reported outcomes are relevant outcomes in studies on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, as anatomical recurrence alone does not have a significant correlation with perceived improvement. In the present study, the patient’s impression of improvement after 1 year is studied after vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) in large cohorts from daily clinical practice. We hypothesize that there is no difference between the groups.
Methods
This is a secondary analysis on prospectively collected data in a multicenter cohort of patients who underwent VH or SSH for symptomatic POP. All patients had a POP-Q stage ≥ 2 in at least one compartment at baseline and were treated with VH or SSH between 2002 and 2019. The primary outcome was the patient-reported score on the patient global impression of improvement index (PGI-I) 1 year after surgery. The secondary outcome was a composite outcome of surgical success, defined as the absence of recurrent POP beyond the hymen with bothersome bulge symptoms and/or repeat surgery.
Results
A total of 378 women (196 VH and 182 SSH) were included. The median score on the PGI-I did not differ between VH and SSH. At 1 year post-operatively, 77 women after VH (73%) and 77 women after SSH (75%) considered their condition (very) much improved (p = 0.86). There was no difference in composite outcome of surgical success (126 out of 137 women [92%] after VH, 118 out of 125 women [94%] after SSH; p = 0.44).
Conclusions
Our study shows that there was no difference in the type of surgery, VH or SSH, with regard to the patient’s impression of improvement 1 year postoperatively in a large cohort from daily clinical practice.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference22 articles.
1. Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obstetrie en Gynaecologie. Richtlijn Prolaps (Guideline prolapse). The Netherlands. 2014.
2. Slieker-ten Hove M, Pool-Goudzwaard A, Eijkemans M, Steegers-Theunissen R, Burger C, Vierhout M. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20(9):1037–45.
3. Giri A, Hartmann KE, Hellwege JN, Velez Edwards DR, Edwards TL. Obesity and pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217(1):11–26.e3.
4. Pelvic organ prolapse in women: epidemiology, risk factors, clinical manifestations, and management. UpToDate. https://www-uptodate-com.ru.idm.oclc.org/contents/pelvic-organ-prolapse-in-women-epidemiology-risk-factors-clinical-manifestations-and-management?search=uterine%20prolapse&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~62&usage_type=default&display_rank=1. Accessed 16 May 2021.
5. Pelvic organ prolapse in women: surgical repair of apical prolapse (uterine or vaginal vault prolapse). UpToDate. https://www-uptodate-com.ru.idm.oclc.org/contents/pelvic-organ-prolapse-in-women-surgical-repair-of-apical-prolapse-uterine-or-vaginal-vault-prolapse?search=uterine%20prolapse&source=search_result&selectedTitle=3~62&usage_type=default&display_rank=3. Accessed 16 May 2021.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献