Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 8/2018

01-08-2018 | Original Article

Open sacrocolpopexy and vaginal apical repair: retrospective comparison of success and serious complications

Authors: Rebecca G. Rogers, Tracy L. Nolen, Alison C. Weidner, Holly E. Richter, J. Eric Jelovsek, Jonathan P. Shepherd, Heidi S. Harvie, Linda Brubaker, Shawn A. Menefee, Deborah Myers, Yvonne Hsu, Joseph I. Schaffer, Dennis Wallace, Susan F. Meikle, for the NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 8/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We compared treatment success and adverse events between women undergoing open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) vs vaginal repair (VAR) using data from women enrolled in one of three multicenter trials. We hypothesized that ASC would result in better outcomes than VAR.

Methods

Participants underwent apical repair of stage 2–4 prolapse. Vaginal repair included uterosacral, sacrospinous, and iliococcygeal suspensions; sacrocolpopexies were via laparotomy. Success was defined as no bothersome bulge symptoms, no prolapse beyond the hymen, and no retreatment up to 24 months. Adverse events were collected at multiple time points. Outcomes were analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects models to obtain valid outcome estimates at specific visit times, accounting for data missing at random. Comparisons were controlled for center, age, body mass index (BMI), initial Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage, baseline scores, prior prolapse repair, and concurrent repairs.

Results

Of women who met inclusion criteria (1022 of 1159 eligibile), 701 underwent vaginal repair. The ASC group (n = 321) was older, more likely white, had prior prolapse repairs, and stage 4 prolapse (all p < 0.05). While POP-Q measurements and symptoms improved in both groups, treatment success was higher in the ASC group [odds ratio (OR) 6.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.45–10.44). The groups did not differ significantly in most questionnaire responses at 12 months and overall improvement in bowel and bladder function. By 24 months, fewer patients had undergone retreatment (2% ASC vs 5% VAR); serious adverse events did not differ significantly through 6 weeks (13% vs 5%, OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9–4.7), and 12 months (26% vs 13%, OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9–2.9), respectively.

Conclusions

Open sacrocolpopexy resulted in more successful prolapse treatment at 2 years.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;14(4):CD004014. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;14(4):CD004014.
2.
go back to reference Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(6):1418–21.CrossRefPubMed Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(6):1418–21.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):20–6.CrossRefPubMed Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):20–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Lo TS, Wang AC. Abdominal colpopsacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison. J Gyn Surg. 1998;14(2):59–64.CrossRef Lo TS, Wang AC. Abdominal colpopsacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison. J Gyn Surg. 1998;14(2):59–64.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, et al. Pelvic floor disorders network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1557–66.CrossRefPubMed Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, et al. Pelvic floor disorders network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1557–66.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1023–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1023–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter H, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. NEJM. 2012;366(25):2358–67.CrossRefPubMed Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter H, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. NEJM. 2012;366(25):2358–67.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Younis M, Naidoo S, Birrell W. Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment (Pe-QA). Int Urogynecol J. 2014. Haylen BT, Younis M, Naidoo S, Birrell W. Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment (Pe-QA). Int Urogynecol J. 2014.
9.
go back to reference Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1388–95.CrossRefPubMed Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1388–95.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, et al. Pelvic floor disorders network. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, et al. Pelvic floor disorders network. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Barber MD. Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48(3):648–61.CrossRefPubMed Barber MD. Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48(3):648–61.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMed Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C. A short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dys. 2003;14(3):164–8.CrossRef Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C. A short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dys. 2003;14(3):164–8.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, et al. Mesh scrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, et al. Mesh scrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Sze EH, Karram MM. Transvaginal repair of vault prolapse: a review. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:466–75.CrossRefPubMed Sze EH, Karram MM. Transvaginal repair of vault prolapse: a review. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:466–75.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:124–34.CrossRefPubMed Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:124–34.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMed Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long term outcomes following abdominosacralcolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long term outcomes following abdominosacralcolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Open sacrocolpopexy and vaginal apical repair: retrospective comparison of success and serious complications
Authors
Rebecca G. Rogers
Tracy L. Nolen
Alison C. Weidner
Holly E. Richter
J. Eric Jelovsek
Jonathan P. Shepherd
Heidi S. Harvie
Linda Brubaker
Shawn A. Menefee
Deborah Myers
Yvonne Hsu
Joseph I. Schaffer
Dennis Wallace
Susan F. Meikle
for the NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3666-7

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

International Urogynecology Journal 8/2018 Go to the issue