Abstrakt
BackgroundAbdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH+LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH+LSC).
The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures.MethodsA retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH+LSC or TLH+LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic.ResultsIn total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n=43, LSCH+LSC n=208 and TLH+LSC n=43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications.
There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p=0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p=0.006).ConclusionLSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.