Surgical Outcomes Within 1 Year After Native-Tissue Apical Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Versus Uterosacral Ligament Suspension

Ghanbari, Zinat; Pourali, Leila; Eftekhar, Tahereh; Deldar Pesikhani, Maryam; Darvish, Soudabeh; Ayati, Elnaz; Lotfi, Zahra

doi:10.30699/jogcr.8.5.431

Document Type : Original Research Article

Authors

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

² Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

³ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

⁴ Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.30699/jogcr.8.5.431

Abstract

Background & Objective: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the herniation of the pelvic organs to or beyond the vaginal wall. Patients with POP may present with specific symptoms like vaginal bulge or pressure or associated symptoms including urinary, defecatory or sexual dysfunction, which could negatively affect the quality of life in these patients. This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of native-tissue apical suspension by sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) versus uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS).
Materials & Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of native-tissue apical suspension for pelvic organ prolapse within one year after the surgery from March 2017 to July 2019 at Imam Khomeini hospital, an academic hospital of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Inclusion criteria were patients with uterine prolapse at Stage 2 or 3 according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP–Q) who planned for total vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension using uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) or sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) with no history of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. The main outcome was surgical consequences within 1 year after surgery.
Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of relapse of anterior, posterior, or apical compartment prolapse. According to the clinical recurrence, although vaginal bulging and pressure were more common in sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) group, the difference was not significant. The number of patients with severe buttock and pelvic pain was significantly higher in the sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) group.
Conclusion: sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) are both optimal procedures with the same complications and similar surgical outcomes; however, uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) had lower post-operative pelvic pain, and also the number of retreatment was lower in this group.

Keywords

Main Subjects

General Gynecology and Pelvic Floor

References

1. Walters MD, Karram MM. Urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014.

2. Khunda A, Vashisht A, Cutner A. New procedures for uterine prolapse. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(3):363-79. [DOI:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2012.12.004] [PMID]

3. Dietz HP. Prolapse worsens with age, doesn't it? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48(6):587-91. [DOI:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2008.00904.x] [PMID]

4. Kudish BI, Iglesia CB, Sokol RJ, Cochrane B, Richter HE, Larson J, et al. Effect of Weight Change on Natural History of Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(1):81-8. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318190a0dd] [PMID] [PMCID]

5. Dällenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Dubuisson J-B, Boulvain M. Risk Factors for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair After Hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(3):625-32. [DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000278567.37925.4e] [PMID]

6. Suskind Anne M, Jin C, Walter Louise C, Finlayson E. Frailty and the Role of Obliterative versus Reconstructive Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A National Study. J Urol. 2017;197(6):1502-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2016.12.001] [PMID] [PMCID]

7. Bastani P, Hajebrahimi S, Mallah F, Chaichi P, Ghiasi FS. Long-term Outcome of Synthetic Mesh Use in Iranian Women with Genital Prolapse. J Urol. 2020;17(1):73-7.

8. Bastani P, Tayebi S, Ghabousian A, Salehi-Pourmehr H, Hajebrahimi S. Outcomes of the anterior approach versus posterior sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(7):1857-62. [DOI:10.1007/s00192-022-05171-z] [PMID]

9. Bastani P, Ebrahimpour M, Mallah F, Hajebrahimi S, Salehi Pourmehr H. Comparison of the Functional and Anatomical Outcomes of Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy and Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension for the Treatment of Apical Prolapse. J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res. 2021;7(2):105-13. [DOI:10.30699/jogcr.7.2.105]

10. Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1815-33. [DOI:10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1] [PMID]

11. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;12(4):CD004014. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5]

12. Jones H, Rock J. TeLinde's Operative Gynecology. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2019.

13. Berek JS. Berek & Novak's gynecology: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2019.

14. Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, Rardin CR, Rogers RG, Harvie HS, et al. Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;322(11):1054-65. [DOI:10.1001/jama.2019.12812] [PMID] [PMCID]

15. Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, Norton P, Gantz M, Richter HE, et al. Effect of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Sacrospinous 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 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554-65. [DOI:10.1001/jama.2018.2827] [PMID] [PMCID]

16. 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(10):CD012376. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD012376] [PMID] [PMCID]

17. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC, 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. [DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.1719] [PMID] [PMCID]

18. Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF. 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. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149. [DOI:10.1136/bmj.l5149] [PMID] [PMCID]

19. Ng S-C, Tsui K-P, Huang L, Chen G-D. Effects of uterine preservation on long-term subjective outcomes of sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;240:167-71. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.006] [PMID]

20. Gupta P. Transvaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Stage III and Stage IV Uterovaginal and Vault Prolapse. Iran J Med Sci. 2015;40(1):58-62.

21. Husby KR, Larsen MD, Lose G, Klarskov N. Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(11):1887-93. [DOI:10.1007/s00192-019-03950-9] [PMID]

22. Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, et al. Mesh Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Native Tissue Vaginal Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44-55. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000570] [PMID] [PMCID]

23. Schimpf MO, Abed H, Sanses T, White AB, Lowenstein L, Ward RM, et al. Graft and Mesh Use in Transvaginal Prolapse Repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):81-91. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001451] [PMID]

24. Eftekhar T, Forooghifar T, Alizadeh S, Shabihkhani S, Forooghifar T, Hajhashemy M. Apical Prolapse Surgical Treatment Outcomes: Transabdominal Versus Transvaginal Approach. J Gynecol Surg. 2018;34(2):68-73. [DOI:10.1089/gyn.2017.0045]

Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Cancer Research

Surgical Outcomes Within 1 Year After Native-Tissue Apical Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Versus Uterosacral Ligament Suspension

References

References

Volume 8, Issue 5 - Serial Number 34
September and October 2023
Pages 431-437

Surgical Outcomes Within 1 Year After Native-Tissue Apical Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Versus Uterosacral Ligament Suspension

References

References

Volume 8, Issue 5 - Serial Number 34September and October 2023Pages 431-437

Volume 8, Issue 5 - Serial Number 34
September and October 2023
Pages 431-437