Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) for vaginal vault prolapse (VVP). METHODS: Long-term follow-up of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (SALTO trial). A total of 74 women were randomly assigned to LSC (n=37) or ASC (n=37). Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life, measured with validated questionnaires. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome, composite outcome of success, complications, and retreatment. RESULTS: We analyzed 22 patients in the LSC group and 19 patients in the ASC group for long-term follow-up, with a median follow-up of 109 months (9.1 years). Disease-specific quality of life did not differ after long-term follow-up with median scores of 0.0 (LSC: IQR 0-17; ASC: IQR 0-0) on the "genital prolapse" domain of the Urogenital Distress Inventory in both groups (p = 0.175). Anatomical outcomes were the same for both groups on all points of the POP-Q. The composite outcome of success for the apical compartment is 78.6% (n = 11) in the LSC group and 84.6% (n = 11) in the ASC group (p = 0.686). Mesh exposures occurred in 2 patients (12.5%) in the LSC group and 1 patient (7.7%) in the ASC group. There were 5 surgical reinterventions in both groups (LSC: 22.7%; ASC: 26.3%, p = 0.729). CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up no substantial differences in quality of life, anatomical results, complications, or reinterventions between LSC and ASC were observed. Therefore, the laparoscopic approach is preferable, considering the short-term advantages. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register NTR6330, 18 January 2017, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5964.

Liberal or restrictive fluid management during elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This article reviews if a restrictive fluid management policy reduces the complication rate if compared to liberal fluid management policy during elective surgery. The PubMed database was explored by 2 independent researchers. We used the following search terms: "Blood transfusion (MESH); transfusion need; fluid therapy (MESH); permissive hypotension; fluid management; resuscitation; restrictive fluid management; liberal fluid management; elective surgery; damage control resuscitation; surgical procedures, operative (MESH); wounds (MESH); injuries (MESH); surgery; trauma patients." A secondary search in the Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library revealed no additional results. We selected randomized controlled trials performed during elective surgeries. Patients were randomly assigned to a restrictive fluid management policy or to a liberal fluid management policy during elective surgery. The patient characteristics and the type of surgery varied. All but 3 studies reported American Society of Anaesthesiologists groups 1 to 3 as the inclusion criterion. The primary outcome of interest is total number of patients with a complication and the complication rate. Secondary outcome measures are infection rate, transfusion need, postoperative rebleeding, hospital stay, and renal function. In total, 1397 patients were analyzed (693 restrictive protocol, 704 liberal protocol). Meta-analysis showed that in the restrictive group as compared with the liberal group, fewer patients experienced a complication (relative risk [RR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.78). The total complication rate (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.52-0.64), risk of infection (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.79), and transfusion rate (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99) were also lower. The postoperative rebleeding did not differ in both groups: RR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.28-2.06). We conclude that compared with a liberal fluid policy, a restrictive fluid policy in elective surgery results in a 35% reduction in patients with a complication and should be advised as the preferred fluid management policy.