Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our objective was to compare complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic (L-USLS) and vaginal (V-USLS) uterosacral ligament suspensions.

METHODS: This is a retrospective study of USLS procedures performed at a large academic center from 2011 to 2014. Patient demographics, surgical data, complications, and prolapse recurrence of L-USLS and V-USLS were compared. Logistic regression identified predictors of operative time, complications, and prolapse recurrence.

RESULTS: There were 54 L-USLS and 119 V-USLS procedures with median follow-up of 21.5 weeks (IQR 9.3-50.8). Women undergoing L-USLS were less likely to have medical comorbidities and had less severe prolapse, but were more likely to report prior hysterectomy. L-USLS had longer operative times (190.1 ± 46.8 vs 172.7 ± 47.3 min, p = 0.03), but after correcting for concomitant procedures, the operative times of the two approaches were not significantly different (adjusted OR 1.00, 95%CI 0.99-1.00). There was no significant difference in complications between groups (24.1 % vs 21.8 %, p = 0.75). However, there were nonsignificant trends toward more ureteral injuries and suture removals following V-USLS. Postoperative POP-Q points of the groups did not differ, except for total vaginal length (TVL), which was longer after L-USLS (8.3 ± 1.1 cm vs 7.4 ± 1.2 cm, p < 0.001). 19 patients met the composite definition of prolapse recurrence, with no significant difference between groups (16.2 % vs 16 %, p = 0.98). After adjusting for preoperative prolapse stage, route was not a significant predictor of prolapse recurrence (adjusted OR 0.39, 95 % CI 0.12-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS: L-USLS has comparable clinical outcomes, with similar rates of complications and prolapse recurrence to the traditional vaginal approach.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app