Vaginal-assisted Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy and Vaginal Hysterectomy with Vaginal Vault Suspension for Advanced Uterine Prolapse: 12-month Preliminary Results of a Randomized Controlled Study

Objective: Vaginal-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (VALH) is a new modified form of uterine-sparing prolapse surgery using a combined vaginal and laparoscopic approach. We aimed to compare 1 year efficacy and safety of VALH and vaginal hysterectomy + vaginal vault suspension (VH + VVS) in the surgical treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Materials and Methods: Women who requested surgical treatment for stage 2–4 symptomatic uterine prolapse were recommended to participate in one year-long randomized study between July 2017 and January 2019. POP Quantification (POP-Q) examination and validated questionnaires such as International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms (IVIQ-VS) survey, Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (IIQ-7), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) were recorded at baseline and 12 months after surgery. The main primary outcome measure was apical prolapse recurrence. Secondary results were duration of surgery, pain score, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and quality of life scores related to prolapse. Results: There were 15 women in VALH and 19 women in the VH + VVS group. ICIQ-VS score, ICIQ-QOL, UDI-6, and IIQ-7 scores were improved for both groups. According to the PGI-I scores, 80% of subjects in the VALH group, and 100% in the VH + VVS group, were “very much better” or “much better” with their prolapse symptoms at their 1-year follow-up. There was no reoperation or operation-related complication in both groups. Conclusion: VALH and VH + VVS have similar 1-year cure rates and patient satisfaction.

[1]  Helen Jefferis,et al.  Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years’ experience , 2017, International Urogynecology Journal.

[2]  K. Kluivers,et al.  Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[3]  S. Jackson,et al.  Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study , 2015, International Urogynecology Journal.

[4]  Yanzhou Wang,et al.  Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse , 2015, International Urogynecology Journal.

[5]  A. Fayyad,et al.  Safety and one year outcomes following vaginally assisted laparoscopic uterine sacropexy (VALUES) for advanced uterine prolapse , 2014, Neurourology and urodynamics.

[6]  V. Sung,et al.  Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. , 2013, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  K. Kluivers,et al.  Urinary incontinence after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse , 2013, Neurourology and urodynamics.

[8]  J. Jelovsek,et al.  Attitudes Toward Hysterectomy in Women Undergoing Evaluation for Uterovaginal Prolapse , 2013, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[9]  S. Jha,et al.  The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on , 2010, International urogynecology journal.

[10]  N. Price,et al.  Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse , 2010, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  L. Cardozo,et al.  Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse , 2010, International Urogynecology Journal.

[12]  M. Eijkemans,et al.  The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population , 2009, International Urogynecology Journal.

[13]  S. Narayanan Laparoscopic uterine sling suspension: a new technique of uterine suspension in women desiring surgical management of uterine prolapse with uterine conservation , 2008, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[14]  P. Abrams,et al.  Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire: the ICIQ‐VS , 2006, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[15]  V. Bini,et al.  Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. , 2003, European urology.

[16]  P. Scholten,et al.  A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function , 2004, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[17]  M. Carey,et al.  LAPAROSCOPIC SUTURE HYSTEROPEXY FOR UTERINE PROLAPSE , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[18]  M. Grody Urinary incontinence and concomitant prolapse. , 1998, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.

[19]  L. Brubaker,et al.  The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. , 1996, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  D. McClish,et al.  Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: The incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory , 1995, Neurourology and urodynamics.

[21]  J. Ibrahim,et al.  Failure of laparoscopic uterine suspension to provide a lasting cure for uterovaginal prolapse , 1994, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.