Surgical outcomes in patients aged 70 years and older following uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparative study.

PURPOSE: The number of elderly patients bothered by pelvic organ prolapse symptoms is growing rapidly. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between age and surgical outcomes in women undergoing uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical prolapse. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study including women who underwent uterosacral ligament suspension between 2010 and 2020. The cohort was divided into two groups: (1) Patients 70 years or older; (2) Patients under the age of 70. Outcome measures included clinical, anatomical, and composite outcomes as well as patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 271 patients were included in the final analysis. Of them 209 patients were under age 70 and 62 patients 70 years or older. Mean age was 59 ± 6 vs. 73 ± 3 for the young and elderly age groups, respectively. Clinical success was high for both groups, reaching 94% vs. 89% for elderly and young patients, respectively (p = 0.34). Anatomical and composite outcome success were higher in the young age group (76% vs. 56%, p < 0.01 and 70% vs. 54%, p = 0.02, respectively); however, following multivariate analysis these differences were no longer statistically significant. Following multivariate logistic regression analysis for the dependent parameter of anatomical success, increased pre-operative genital hiatus and vaginal surgical route were associated with anatomical failure while performing a concomitant posterior colporrhaphy increased likelihood for anatomical success. CONCLUSION: Women over the age of 70 undergoing uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical prolapse have comparable outcomes to younger patients.

The effect of uterine volume on surgical outcomes following uterine preserving apical prolapse repair.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years uterine preservation has become a popular option in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of uterine volume on outcomes following uterine preserving surgical treatment for apical prolapse. METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparative study at a tertiary university hospital. Included were women who had uterine preserving surgical treatment for apical prolapse. The cohort was divided into two groups: 1) Patients with a uterine volume ≥ 35 cm3 (large uterus group); 2) Patients with uterine volume < 35 cm3 (small uterus group). Pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were compared between groups. Our primary outcome was composite outcome success including clinical and anatomical success and no need for reoperation. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, anatomical success, and patient satisfaction evaluated using the PGI-I questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included in the final analysis. The large uterus group (≥35 cm3) consisted of 37 patients as opposed to 47 in the small uterus group (<35 cm3). Clinical (91.9 % vs 87.1 %, p = 0.725) and anatomical success (84.8 % vs 90.9 %, p = 0.508) were high and did not differ between groups. Composite outcome success was 76.1 % in the small uterus group compared to 87.9 % in the large uterus group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Post-operative points Ba, C and Bp were similar between groups. No difference was found in patient satisfaction measured using the PGI-I questionnaire. CONCLUSION: Women undergoing uterine preserving apical prolapse repair with uterine volume ≥ 35 cm3 have comparable surgical outcomes to patients with a smaller uterus.

The Effect of Age on Surgical Outcomes Following Uterine Preserving Surgery for Treatment of Apical Prolapse.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of age on outcomes after uterine-preserving surgical treatment for apical prolapse. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery unit at a tertiary, university-affiliated teaching medical center. PATIENTS: Women who underwent surgical management of apical prolapse with uterine preservation between 2010 and 2020. Excluded were women who had ≤1 month of follow-up and those for whom medical records were substantially incomplete. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Included in the study were 140 women who underwent apical prolapse repair with uterine preservation and who met the inclusion criteria. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: (1) women aged 65 years and older (≥65 group) and (2) women younger than 65 years of age (<65 group). Pre-, intra-, and postoperative data were compared between the groups. A total of 103 women (73.6%) were in the <65 group and 37 women (26.4%) in the ≥65 group. Mean age for the entire cohort was 58 ± 9.8 years, body mass index 25.9 ± 4.8 kg/m2, and duration of follow-up was 25.9 ± 21.0 months. Women in the ≥65 group had more comorbidities, were less sexually active, and were less likely to have a midurethral sling performed during their surgery. Clinical and anatomical success rates were somewhat higher in the ≥65 group; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (97.3% vs 85.4%, p = .069 and 89.2% vs 81.2%, p = .264, respectively). Composite outcome success was higher in the ≥65 group (89.2% vs 72.5%, p = .039). Patient satisfaction recorded using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire was high for both groups. A multivariable logistic regression analysis for the dependent parameter of composite outcome success was performed, during which none of the parameters investigated reached statistical significance. Subgroup analysis was performed including only women who were postmenopausal. This was done to address the possible confounding effect that menopausal status may have had on our results. No differences were found between the groups with regard to clinical, anatomical, and composite outcomes. CONCLUSION: Uterine-preserving surgery is a safe and effective surgical treatment for women aged ≥65 years.

Vaginal Colposuspension Using the Uphold Lite Mesh System versus Transvaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse: A Comparative Study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and anatomic outcomes as well as patient satisfaction in women undergoing vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite system (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA) and transvaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (VUSLS) for the treatment of apical prolapse. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery unit at a university-affiliated tertiary medical center. PATIENTS: Women with apical prolapse who underwent either vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite system (uterine-preserving as well as after previous hysterectomy) or VUSLS from 2010 to 2019. Excluded were women with 1 month or less of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 164 women were included in the study: 112 women underwent VUSLS, and 52 underwent colposuspension using the Uphold Lite mesh system. Age, body mass index, maximal birth weight, comorbidity rates, and pelvic organ prolapse severity were similar between the groups. The clinical cure rate was similarly high in both groups, with 91.1% in the women who underwent VUSLS and 88.5% in those in the Uphold Lite group (p = .60). No differences were noted between the groups with regard to anatomic cure rate or composite outcome success rate (73.9% vs 76.0%, p = .77 and 70.3% vs 74.0%, p = .63, in the VUSLS and Uphold Lite groups, respectively). An advantage was noted in the VUSLS group with regard to patient satisfaction with 98.1% of the women stating that their condition was very much better (Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire: A) or much better (Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire: B) compared with 83.9% of the women in the Uphold Lite group (p = .023). In an attempt to assess the association between different variables and the composite outcome, a multivariate analysis was performed in which increased body mass index, menopausal status, and increased preoperative genital hiatus were found to decrease composite outcome success. CONCLUSION: Vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite system and VUSLS for the treatment of apical prolapse have comparable results with high clinical success rates.

Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension versus vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system: clinical outcome and patient satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare clinical and anatomical outcomes between laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) and vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system for the treatment of apical prolapse. METHODS: We performed a comparative, retrospective cohort study. All women who underwent either vaginal colposuspension with the Uphold Lite™ System or LUSLS for treatment of apical prolapse between 2010 and 2019 were included. The groups were compared with regard to demographic, pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative data. Outcome measures included clinical and anatomical cure, as well as a composite outcome. The PGI-I questionnaire was used to determine patient satisfaction. RESULTS: One-hundred and nineteen women met the inclusion criteria, including 70 women who underwent LUSLS and 49 women who underwent vaginal colposuspension with the Uphold Lite™ mesh system. At a mean follow-up of 31.7 (SD = 18.1) months, the clinical cure rate was high for both groups, reaching 98.6% in the LUSLS group compared with 89.8% in the Uphold group (NS). Anatomical cure rate was 83.6% in the LUSLS group compared with 69.7% for the Uphold group (NS). With regard to the composite outcome, no difference was found, although a trend towards a higher success rate was noted in the LUSLS group (83.6% vs 66.7%, p = 0.055). Patient satisfaction measured using the PGI-I questionnaire was high, at 98.6% in the LUSLS group and 87.8% in the Uphold group (NS). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system both have high clinical cure rates.

Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy vs Total Vaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Anterior and Apical Prolapse: Surgical Outcome and Patient Satisfaction.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare anatomic and clinical cure rates as well as patient satisfaction between uterine-preserving laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with apical and anterior prolapse. DESIGN: Single-center clinical comparative retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery service at a tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Women with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent surgical treatment for their condition between July 2010 and December 2015. INTERVENTIONS: All women underwent laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension or total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for apical and anterior prolapse. Concomitant procedures included anterior and posterior repair, as well as a midurethral sling when indicated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preoperative and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measurements were obtained. The primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Secondary outcomes included anatomic cure rate and outcomes of site-specific POP-Q points Ba, C, and Bp for the whole cohort. Patient satisfaction was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire. During the study period, 106 women underwent transvaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, and 53 women had laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension. At a mean follow-up of 14.7 ± 13.23 months for the vaginal group and 17.5 ± 15.84 months for the laparoscopic group (p = .29), there were significant improvements of POP-Q points Ba, C, and Bp (p < .0001 for all comparisons in both groups). The clinical cure rate was 96% in the vaginal group and 98% in the laparoscopic group (p = .50). The anatomic cure rate was 85.4% in the vaginal group and 93.75% in the laparoscopic group (p = .11) Patient satisfaction was high in both groups. CONCLUSION: In appropriately selected patients, laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension is a valid uterus-preserving option for women with anterior and apical prolapse, associated with high anatomic and clinical cure rates and patient satisfaction.

Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulators for the Treatment of Uterine Leiomyomas.

Uterine leiomyomas have drawn much attention since being described more than 200 years ago. These common benign uterine tumors often present with prolonged menstrual bleeding, pelvic pressure, and reproductive disorders and pose a true financial burden on health care systems all over the world. Over the past few decades, surgical treatment of uterine leiomyomas has received most of the focus compared with other treatment options. Choosing the appropriate surgical technique depends on many factors such as uterine leiomyoma location, patient's age, interest in future fertility, concomitant comorbidities, and the patient's preference. Pharmacologic treatments such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists have been used for the treatment of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas with only partial success. Myriad side effects and limited clinical results have rendered them less popular and have exposed a true need for new effective medical treatments. Recently, treatment with selective progesterone receptor modulators has shown promising results with shrinkage of uterine leiomyomas and a prolonged clinical effect. Selective progesterone receptor modulators provide hope for women with this challenging condition and are a promising new option in the armamentarium of medical treatments for uterine leiomyomas.