-
American Family Physician Aug 2017Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more of the anterior vaginal wall, posterior vaginal wall, the uterus (cervix), or the apex of the vagina (vaginal vault... (Review)
Review
Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more of the anterior vaginal wall, posterior vaginal wall, the uterus (cervix), or the apex of the vagina (vaginal vault or cuff scar after hysterectomy). Prevalence increases with age. The cause of prolapse is multifactorial but is primarily associated with pregnancy and vaginal delivery, which lead to direct pelvic floor muscle and connective tissue injury. Hysterectomy, pelvic surgery, and conditions associated with sustained episodes of increased intra-abdominal pressure, including obesity, chronic cough, constipation, and repeated heavy lifting, also contribute to prolapse. Most patients with pelvic organ prolapse are asymptomatic. Symptoms become more bothersome as the bulge protrudes past the vaginal opening. Initial evaluation includes a history and systematic pelvic examination including assessment for urinary incontinence, bladder outlet obstruction, and fecal incontinence. Treatment options include observation, vaginal pessaries, and surgery. Most women can be successfully fit with a vaginal pessary. Available surgical options are reconstructive pelvic surgery with or without mesh augmentation and obliterative surgery.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pelvic Organ Prolapse
PubMed: 28762694
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The four approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases (from inception to 14 August 2014) using the Ovid platform: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. We also searched relevant citation lists. We used both indexed and free-text terms.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction, quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvi-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies with 5102 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate quality. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (nine RCTs, 762 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -9.5 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.6 to -6.4, three RCTs, 176 women, I(2) = 75%, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (25 RCTs, 2983 women)Return to normal activities was shorter in the LH group (MD -13.6 days, 95% CI -15.4 to -11.8; six RCTs, 520 women, I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), but there were more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.8, 13 RCTs, 2140 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (16 RCTs, 1440 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (two RCTs, 152 women)There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for any primary outcomes. Neither of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life.Overall, the number of adverse events was low in the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to LH and AH, as it is associated with faster return to normal activities. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because of more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes postoperatively. Where VH is not possible, LH has some advantages over AH (including more rapid recovery and fewer febrile episodes and wound or abdominal wall infections), but these are offset by a longer operating time. No advantages of LH over VH could be found; LH had a longer operation time, and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) had more urinary tract injuries. Of the three subcategories of LH, there are more RCT data for laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy and LH than for TLH. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy and RH should either be abandoned or further evaluated since there is a lack of evidence of any benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. These benefits and hazards seem to be dependent on surgical expertise and this may influence the decision. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH may avoid the need for AH, but LH is associated with more urinary tract injuries. There is no evidence that RH is of benefit in this population. Preferably, the surgical approach to hysterectomy should be decided by the woman in discussion with her surgeon.
Topics: Female; Genital Diseases, Female; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26264829
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5 -
BMC Women's Health Jun 2019There are various surgical approaches of hysterectomy for benign indications. This study aimed to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are various surgical approaches of hysterectomy for benign indications. This study aimed to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) with respect to their complications and operative outcomes.
METHODS
We selected randomised controlled trials that compared VH with LH for benign gynaecological indications. We included studies published after January 2000 in the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was comparison of the complication rate. The secondary outcomes were comparisons of operating time, blood loss, intraoperative conversion, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay and duration of recuperation. We used Review Manager 5.3 software to perform the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies of 1618 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed no differences in overall complications, intraoperative conversion, postoperative pain on the day of surgery and at 48 h, length of hospital stay and recuperation time between VH and LH. VH was associated with a shorter operating time and lower postoperative pain at 24 h than LH.
CONCLUSIONS
When both surgical approaches are feasible, VH should remain the surgery of choice for benign hysterectomy.
Topics: Female; Gynecology; Humans; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31234852
DOI: 10.1186/s12905-019-0784-4 -
Surgery Journal (New York, N.Y.) Dec 2021Recently, radical vaginal hysterectomy (RVH) has developed into laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), which is associated with the...
Recently, radical vaginal hysterectomy (RVH) has developed into laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH), which is associated with the laparoscopical procedure, and it is applied as radical vaginal trachelectomy and semi-radical vaginal hysterectomy. LARVH is indicated for patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical carcinoma, especially those with a tumor size of less than 2 cm, because the cardinal ligaments cannot be resected widely. Although RVH that is associated with laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy is the most used surgical procedure, radical trachelectomy may be performed either abdominally or vaginally (laparoscopic or robotic). One report found that the pregnancy rate was higher in patients who underwent minimally invasive or radical vaginal trachelectomy than in those who underwent radical abdominal trachelectomy.
PubMed: 35111936
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739120 -
Surgery Journal (New York, N.Y.) Jun 2019The basic procedure of abdominal hysterectomy is extrafascial hysterectomy, and intrafascial hysterectomy (Aldridge operation) and retrograde hysterectomy are performed...
The basic procedure of abdominal hysterectomy is extrafascial hysterectomy, and intrafascial hysterectomy (Aldridge operation) and retrograde hysterectomy are performed as applied surgical procedures. The Aldridge operation and retrograde hysterectomy are performed when strong adhesion is present around the uterus. Retrograde hysterectomy is also useful when the cervicovaginal junction is not clearly felt by palpation, such as when uterine rupture immediately occurs after vaginal delivery or when a large tumor mass is present in the vagina.
PubMed: 31187069
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1683919 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2019To evaluate the effectiveness and success of uterus preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Observational Study Randomized Controlled Trial
Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and success of uterus preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse five years after surgery.
DESIGN
Observational follow-up of SAVE U (sacrospinous fixation versus vaginal hysterectomy in treatment of uterine prolapse ≥2) randomised controlled trial.
SETTING
Four non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands.
PARTICIPANTS
204 of 208 healthy women in the initial trial (2009-12) with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery who had been randomised to sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. The women were followed annually for five years after surgery. This extended trial reports the results at five years.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Prespecified primary outcome evaluated at five year follow-up was recurrent prolapse of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) stage 2 or higher evaluated by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical failure (recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher in apical, anterior, or posterior compartment), composite outcome of success (defined as no prolapse beyond the hymen, no bothersome bulge symptoms, and no repeat surgery or pessary use for recurrent prolapse), functional outcome, quality of life, repeat surgery, and sexual functioning.
RESULTS
At five years, surgical failure of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery occurred in one woman (1%) after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with eight women (7.8%) after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (difference-6.7%, 95% confidence interval -12.8% to-0.7%). A statistically significant difference was found in composite outcome of success between sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy (89/102 (87%) 77/102 (76%). The other secondary outcomes did not differ. Time-to-event analysis at five years showed no differences between the interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
At five year follow-up significantly less anatomical recurrences of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery were found after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. After hysteropexy a higher proportion of women had a composite outcome of success. Time-to-event analysis showed no differences in outcomes between the procedures.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
trialregister.nl NTR1866.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Ligaments; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Quality of Life; Recurrence; Reoperation; Severity of Illness Index; Suture Techniques; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Prolapse
PubMed: 31506252
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l5149 -
JAMA Aug 2023Surgical repairs of apical/uterovaginal prolapse are commonly performed using native tissue pelvic ligaments as the point of attachment for the vaginal cuff after a... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Surgical repairs of apical/uterovaginal prolapse are commonly performed using native tissue pelvic ligaments as the point of attachment for the vaginal cuff after a hysterectomy. Clinicians may recommend vaginal estrogen in an effort to reduce prolapse recurrence, but the effects of intravaginal estrogen on surgical prolapse management are uncertain.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy of perioperative vaginal estrogen vs placebo cream on prolapse recurrence following native tissue surgical prolapse repair.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This randomized superiority clinical trial was conducted at 3 tertiary US clinical sites (Texas, Alabama, Rhode Island). Postmenopausal women (N = 206) with bothersome anterior and apical vaginal prolapse interested in surgical repair were enrolled in urogynecology clinics between December 2016 and February 2020.
INTERVENTIONS
The intervention was 1 g of conjugated estrogen cream (0.625 mg/g) or placebo, inserted vaginally nightly for 2 weeks and then twice weekly to complete at least 5 weeks of application preoperatively; this continued twice weekly for 12 months postoperatively. Participants underwent a vaginal hysterectomy (if uterus present) and standardized apical fixation (either uterosacral or sacrospinous ligament fixation).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was time to failure of prolapse repair by 12 months after surgery defined by at least 1 of the following 3 outcomes: anatomical/objective prolapse of the anterior or posterior walls beyond the hymen or the apex descending more than one-third of the vaginal length, subjective vaginal bulge symptoms, or repeated prolapse treatment. Secondary outcomes included measures of urinary and sexual function, symptoms and signs of urogenital atrophy, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Of 206 postmenopausal women, 199 were randomized and 186 underwent surgery. The mean (SD) age of participants was 65 (6.7) years. The primary outcome was not significantly different for women receiving vaginal estrogen vs placebo through 12 months: 12-month failure incidence of 19% (n = 20) for vaginal estrogen vs 9% (n = 10) for placebo (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.97 [95% CI, 0.92-4.22]), with the anatomic recurrence component being most common, rather than vaginal bulge symptoms or prolapse repeated treatment. Masked surgeon assessment of vaginal tissue quality and estrogenization was significantly better in the vaginal estrogen group at the time of the operation. In the subset of participants with at least moderately bothersome vaginal atrophy symptoms at baseline (n = 109), the vaginal atrophy score for most bothersome symptom was significantly better at 12 months with vaginal estrogen.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Adjunctive perioperative vaginal estrogen application did not improve surgical success rates after native tissue transvaginal prolapse repair.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02431897.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Administration, Intravaginal; Estrogens, Conjugated (USP); Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Pelvic Organ Prolapse; Secondary Prevention; Treatment Outcome; Uterine Prolapse; Vagina; Vaginal Creams, Foams, and Jellies
PubMed: 37581673
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.12317