Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-04-2019 | Original Article

Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach

Authors: Sara Houlihan, Shunaha Kim-Fine, Colin Birch, Selphee Tang, Erin A. Brennand

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2019

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To compare laparoscopic and vaginal approaches to uterosacral ligament vault suspension (USLS) by perioperative data, short-term complications, rates of successful concomitant adnexal surgery and procedural efficacy.

Methods

Retrospective cohort of USLS procedures performed at the time of hysterectomy at a tertiary care center over a 3-year period. Patient demographics, surgical data, concomitant adnexal procedures and complications were abstracted from a surgical database and compared using parametric or non-parametric tests as appropriate. Validated questionnaires (POPDI-6, UDI-6, PROMIS) were used to collect information on recurrence and long-term complications. Patients were analyzed according to both intention-to-treat analysis based on the intended approach and the completed route of surgery to deal with intraoperative conversions.

Results

Two hundred six patients met the criteria for inclusion; 152 underwent vaginal USLS (V-USLS) and 54 laparoscopic USLS (L-USLS). No statistically significant differences in mean case time, postoperative length of stay or perioperative infection were found. While no ureteric obstructions occurred in the L-USLS group, in the V-USLS group 14 (9%) obstructions occurred (p = 0.023). Postoperative urinary retention was higher with V-USLS (31% vs. 15%, p = 0.024). Rates of successfully completed adnexal surgery differed (56% vs. 98%, p < 0.001) in favor of L-USLS. Patient-reported symptomatic recurrence of prolapse was higher in the V-USLS group (41% vs. 24%, p = 0.046); despite this, re-treatment did not differ between the groups (0% vs. 7%, p = 0.113).

Conclusions

Perioperative case time and complications did not differ between approaches. However, rates of completed adnexal surgery were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group, which could influence surgical decisions concerning approaches to prolapse surgery.

Available only for authorised users

Handa VL, Garrett E, Hendrix S, Gold E, Robbins J. Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: a longitudinal study of menopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.07.017.CrossRefPubMed

Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the women’s health initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):160–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123819.CrossRef

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6.CrossRefPubMed

Brubaker L, Glazener C, Jacquetin B, Maher C, Melgrem A, Norton P, et al. Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. In: Abrams P, Cordozo L, Koury S, Wein A, editors. 4th international consultation on incontinence. Paris: Health Publication Ltd; 2009. p. 1278.

Ross JW. Apical vault repair, the cornerstone of pelvic vault reconstruction. Int Urogynecol J. 1997;8(3):146–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02764847.CrossRef

Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1815–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1.CrossRefPubMed

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:10. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012376.CrossRef

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(10):1023–34. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.1719.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospionous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the optimal trial randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Rardin CR, Erekson EA, Sung VW, Ward RM, Myers DL. Uterosacral colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches. J Reprod Med. 2009;54(5):273–80.PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Barbier HM, Smith MZ, Eto CU, Welgoss JA, Pechman WV, Horbach N, et al. Ureteral compromise in laparoscopic versus vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: a retrospective cohort. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21:363–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000202.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Turner LC, Lavelle ES, Shepherd JP. Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:797–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2897-0.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Symmonds RF, Williams TJ, Lee RA, Webb MJ. Posthysterectomy enterocele and vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;40(8):852–9.CrossRef

14.

Lee RA, Symmonds RF. Surgical repair of posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972;112(7):953–6.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Falconer H, Yin L, Gronberg H. Ovarian cancer risk after salpingectomy: a nationwide population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:2. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju410.CrossRef

16.

Salvador S, Scott S, Francis JA, Agrawal A, Giede C. No.344-opportunistic salpingectomy and other methods of risk reduction for ovarian/peritoneal cancer in the general population. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(6):480e493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2016.12.005.CrossRef

17.

Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Weinfurt KP, Lin L, Bruner DW, Dombeck JM, Hahn EA. Development and initial validation of PROMIS sexual function and satisfaction measures version 2.0. J Sex Med. 2015;12(9):1961–74.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Margulies RU, Rogers MAM, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(2):124–34.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Unger CA, Waters MD, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Paraiso MFR. Incidence of adverse event after uterosacral colpopexy for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212:603 e1-7.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Spelzini F, Manodoro S, Interdonato ML, Cesana MC, Verri D, Fumagallti C, et al. Modified McCall culdoplasty versus Shull suspension in pelvic prolapse primary repair: a retrospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3016-6.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Vorwergk J, Radosa MP, Nicolaus K. Prophylactic bilateral salpingectomy (PBS) to reduce ovarian cancer risk incorporated in standard premenopausal hysterectomy: complications and re-operation rate. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:859e65.CrossRef

23.

Kho R, Wechter ME. Operative outcomes of opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in low-risk premenopausal women: a systematic review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;24(2):218–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.12.004.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Nazir CPA. Patient reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(4):137–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach
Authors: Sara Houlihan
Shunaha Kim-Fine
Colin Birch
Selphee Tang
Erin A. Brennand
Publication date: 01-04-2019
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3801-5

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Modified extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension for prevention of vault prolapse after vaginal hysterectomy

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology

Aggressive angiomyxoma presenting as posterior vaginal prolapse

Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey

Uterus preservation is superior to hysterectomy when performing laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh

The symptom of vaginal bulging in nulliparous women aged 25–64 years: a national cohort study