Premium
Evaluation of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy vs. Uterosacral Suspension for the Treatment of Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Assessment
Author(s) -
ALBADR Ahmed,
PERVEEN Kauser,
ALSHAIKH Ghadeer
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
luts: lower urinary tract symptoms
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.451
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 1757-5672
pISSN - 1757-5664
DOI - 10.1111/luts.12104
Subject(s) - medicine , urogynecology , retrospective cohort study , uterine prolapse , logistic regression , hysterectomy , body mass index , gynecology , medical record , confounding , surgery , urinary incontinence
Objective This single‐center retrospective study aimed to compare the outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy with utero‐sacral suspension ( VH / USS ) versus sacro‐spinous hysteropexy ( SSHP ) in the management of uterine prolapse at a tertiary care center specializing in U rogynecology. Methods The medical records of 50 women with stage 2 or more uterine prolapse treated with VH / USS ( n = 26) or SSHP ( n = 24) were assessed between J anuary 2006 and D ecember 2012. Results There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of body mass index ( BMI ) and parity P = 0.881 and 0.304, respectively. VH / USS procedure was significantly more successful than SSHP procedure with regard to anatomical success (84.62 vs. 41.67%, P = 0.0028). There was a significantly higher anterior prolapse recurrence with SSHP procedure than with VH / USS (33.3 vs. 7.7%; P = 0.034). SSHP was associated with the lower likelihood of anatomical success and a higher risk of recurrent anterior prolapse in multivariate logistic regression analyzes adjusting for potential confounders. Conclusion The findings of this retrospective study indicate that SSHP appears to be associated with less anatomical objective success and an increased risk of recurrent anterior prolapse in comparison to VH / USS . Further validation of our observations by independent investigators is required.