Long-term safety, objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy without peritoneal closure.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is performed to support DeLancey's level I in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Although several studies have been conducted on the safety, objective and subjective outcomes of LSC, the specific effect of retroperitonealisation of mesh is unknown. This study is aimed at analysing the safety, objective and subjective outcomes of the LSC without peritoneal closure of mesh. METHODS: The patients included have undergone an LSC for POP between 2004 and 2014. Retrospectively, a cohort of n = 178 was identified and asked to participate in a follow-up study. Chart research was performed. When informed consent was obtained, questionnaires were sent and the patients underwent a physical examination, including a POP-Q assessment. Each complication was scored by four reviewers for possibly being related to the non-peritonealisation of mesh. RESULTS: The data on the outcome cohorts were complete for safety n = 178, objective n = 124, and subjective n = 61. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score is provided in 106 questionnaires. In this study, 77 complications were observed in 49 different patients. The total success rate (no reoperation, no descent beyond the hymen and no bulging symptoms) is 59.0% with a median follow-up (IQR) of 35 months (18-51). Seventy-six patients (71.7%) described their condition as being (much) improved after LSC. CONCLUSIONS: Three serious complications observed during the 178 LSCs were, by full consensus, thought to be possibly related to the non-peritonealisation of mesh. More than 70% of the patients found their condition to be (much) improved after the procedure.

A Perioperative eHealth Program to Enhance Postoperative Recovery After Abdominal Surgery: Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health (eHealth) interventions have proven effective, but implementation in clinical practice is difficult. More research focusing on the implementation process of eHealth interventions is necessary. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the process evaluation of a perioperative eHealth intervention, aiming to enhance recovery after laparoscopic abdominal surgery. METHODS: A process evaluation was carried out alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients aged between 18 and 75 years who were scheduled for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hernia inguinal surgery, or laparoscopic adnexal surgery were included. The eHealth intervention comprised a website and mobile phone app with the possibility to develop a personalized convalescence plan, a section with information about the surgical procedure and the recovery period, the possibility to ask questions via an electronic consultation (eConsult), and an activity tracker. The process evaluation was carried out using the model of Linnan and Steckler, measuring components such as reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, and participants' attitudes. Implementation scores were calculated based on the average of the four components. Quantitative data were collected by means of an electronic questionnaire, a logistic database, a weblog, and medical files. Qualitative data were collected by conducting interviews with a subsample of the study participants. RESULTS: A total of 344 of the 863 eligible patients were included in the study, which accounted for a reach of 39.9%, and 173 participants were randomized to the intervention group. The implementation scores of the different functions of the intervention ranged between 60% and 65%. The website, mobile phone app, and activity tracker were rated 7.3 to 7.6 on a scale of 1 to 10. Almost all participants who were interviewed about the eConsult function rated it as being of additional value if combined with the usual care but not as a replacement for usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Although participants were overall satisfied with the intervention, the implementation scores of the different functions of the intervention were fair. More research is needed to evaluate the barriers and facilitators for implementation of this perioperative eHealth intervention in normal practice outside study setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry NTR4699; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4699 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6vr02V4KK).

Invasive placentation and uterus preserving treatment modalities: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: We present a systematic review to evaluate failure rates (secondary hysterectomy or maternal mortality) and success rates (subsequent menstruation or pregnancy) after different uterus preserving treatment modalities in women with invasive placentation. METHODS: A review of English, German or Dutch language-published research, using Medline and Embase databases, was performed. Studies of any design were included. RESULTS: Ten cohort studies and 50 case series or case reports were included. Expectant management reported a secondary hysterectomy in 55/287 (19%), maternal mortality in 1/295 (0.3%), a subsequent menstruation in 44/49 (90%) and a subsequent pregnancy in 24/36 (67%). Embolization of the uterine arteries described a secondary hysterectomy in 8/45 (18%), a subsequent menstruation in 8/13 (62%) and a subsequent pregnancy in 5/33 (15%). Methotrexate therapy presented a secondary hysterectomy in 1/16 (6%), a subsequent menstruation in 4/5 (80%) and a subsequent pregnancy in 1/2 (50%). Uterus preserving surgery showed a secondary hysterectomy in 24/77 (31%), maternal mortality in 2/55 (4%), a subsequent menstruation in 28/34 (82%) and a subsequent pregnancy in 19/26 (73%). CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that different uterus preserving treatment modalities may be effective in managing invasive placentation. Despite the extensive review of the literature, no conclusions about the superiority of any modality can be drawn.

Continuous intrauterine compared with cyclic oral progestin administration in perimenopausal HRT.

OBJECTIVES: Two hormone replacement therapy (HRT) regimens of combined oral estradiol with either continuous intrauterine or cyclic oral progestin were compared for 2 years. METHODS: 200 perimenopausal women randomly received an intrauterine system with continuous levonorgestrel release (20 microg/24 h) combined with oral estradiol (2 mg daily), or a cyclic oral regimen of norethisterone acetate (1 mg on day 13-22) and estradiol (days 1-21; 2 mg, days 22-28; 1 mg). Efficacy on endometrial protection, vaginal bleeding patterns, blood loss and practical use were compared during 26 cycles. RESULTS: Endometrial protection was adequate in both regimens. The cyclic regimen induced a more regular bleeding pattern. The continuous local administration induced a reduction in bleeding (P=0.001) with an initial period of prolonged and frequent bleeding. 38% became amenorrhoeic. Women found both regimens acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous intrauterine Levonorgestrel administration by using an intrauterine system can well be recommended for use in combination with oestrogen replacement therapy in perimenopausal women.

Effects of a preovulatory single low dose of mifepristone on ovarian function.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of a single low dose of mifepristone on ovarian function, when administered in the preovulatory period. METHODS: Healthy women with regular menstrual cycles were studied during two consecutive menstrual cycles. Either mifepristone or placebo was given in a randomized double-blind order when the leading follicle reached a diameter between 15 and 17 mm. Daily ultrasound and serum hormone measurements were obtained until follicular collapse. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Eight women entered the study, although one woman had to be excluded afterwards from analysis because her LH surge had already appeared on the day of treatment. The LH surge was delayed from day 14 to 17 (P = 0.01). Mifepristone caused a 3-day delay in follicular collapse, occurring on day 16 in control cycles and on day 19 in mifepristone treatment cycles (P = 0.02). The median cycle length was 26 days in control cycles and 30 days in mifepristone treatment cycles (P = 0.03). Progesterone measurement 7 days after follicular collapse did not differ significantly between both cycles. CONCLUSIONS: A single 10-mg dose of mifepristone administered during the preovulatory phase of the cycle delays the LH surge and postpones ovulation.

A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of vaginal hysterectomy (combined with anterior and/or posterior colporraphy) and abdominal sacro-colpopexy (with preservation of the uterus) on urogenital function. DESIGN: Randomised trial. SETTING: Three teaching hospitals in The Netherlands. POPULATION: Eighty-two patients undergoing surgical correction of uterine prolapse stages II-IV. METHODS: Participating patients completed the urogenital distress inventory (UDI), before and at six weeks, six months and one year after surgery, to measure discomfort of prolapse and micturition symptoms. Domain scores of the UDI (ranging from 0 to 100, higher scores indicating more discomfort) were compared between groups at all time points. Findings at pelvic examination, number of doctor visits within the first year after surgery because of pelvic floor symptoms and performed or planned surgery of recurrent genital prolapse were also compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Domain scores of the UDI at one year after surgery. RESULTS: At one year after surgery, scores on the discomfort/pain domain (mean difference 7.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-13.2), overactive bladder domain (mean difference 8.7, 95% CI 0.5-16.9) and obstructive micturition domain (mean difference 10.3, 95% CI 0.6-20.1) of the UDI were significantly higher in the abdominal group than in the vaginal group. Findings at pelvic examination were similar in both groups. Doctor visits because of pelvic floor symptoms were more frequent in the abdominal group than in the vaginal group. Re-operation was performed or planned in 9 of the 41 patients who underwent abdominal surgery and in 1 of the 41 patients who underwent vaginal surgery (odds ratio [OR] = 11.2, 95% CI 1.4-90.0). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that vaginal hysterectomy with anterior and/or posterior colporraphy is preferable to abdominal sacro-colpopexy with preservation of the uterus as surgical correction in patients with uterine prolapse stages II-IV.