Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent

Author:

Enklaar Rosa A.1,Schulten Sascha F. M.1,van Eijndhoven Hugo W. F.2,Weemhoff Mirjam3,van Leijsen Sanne A. L.4,van der Weide Marijke C.5,van Bavel Jeroen6,Verkleij-Hagoort Anna C.7,Adang Eddy M. M.8,Kluivers Kirsten B.1,Veen Joggem9,Massop-Helmink Diana9,Sikkema Marko9,Lenselink Charlotte9,Steures Pieternel9,Wingen Chantal9,Notten Kim9,van Rumpt-van de Geest Deliana9,Vellekoop Jorik9,Engberts Maria Karin9,Damoiseaux Anne9,Stoutjesdijk Jackie9,Mouw Ronald J.C.9,van der Ploeg Marinus9,van Gestel Iris9,Vollebregt Astrid9,Stekelenburg Jelle9,Spaans Wilbert9,Tiersma Stella9,Klerkx Wenche9,Speksnijder Leonie9,

Affiliation:

1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Isala, Zwolle, the Netherlands

3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, the Netherlands

4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Máxima Medical Center, Veldhoven, the Netherlands

5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands

7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands

8. Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

9. for the SAM Study Group

Abstract

ImportanceIn many countries, sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most commonly practiced uterus-preserving technique in women undergoing a first operation for pelvic organ prolapse. However, there are no direct comparisons of outcomes after sacrospinous hysteropexy vs an older technique, the Manchester procedure.ObjectiveTo compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications.ResultsAmong 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of −9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, −10.3%; 95% CI, −17.8% to −2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups.ConclusionsBased on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure.Trial RegistrationTrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

Cited by 3 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3