Laparoscopic Cerclage Sacrohysteropexy: Comparing a Novel Technique for Sacrohysteropexy to Traditional Supracervical Hysterectomy and Sacrocervicopexy. Issue 2 (February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Armstrong, Katherine L.; Modest, Anna M.; Rosenblatt, Peter L.
• Is Part Of: Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery. Volume 27:Issue 2(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-02
• Subjects: prolapse -- uterine preservation -- sacrohysteropexy -- mesh repair; Pelvis -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Pelvis -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Genital Diseases, Female -- surgery -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Colonic Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Rectal Diseases -- surgery -- Periodicals; Surgical Procedures, Operative -- methods -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000917
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2151-8378

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic cerclage sacrohysteropexy (LCSH), a novel technique used to perform sacrohysteropexy, which requires significantly less suturing and knot tying, to traditional laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) with sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent LCSH between March 3, 2016, and October 30, 2018, and patients who underwent LSH with sacrocervicopexy between September 1, 2013, and October 30, 2018. Medical records were reviewed to obtain information on baseline demographics, preoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q), baseline Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory score, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Apical failure was defined as descent of the cervix beyond the midvagina (C > −TVL/2). Subjective failure was defined as reporting of bulge symptoms, reoperation, or use of a vaginal pessary. Results: Seventy-seven patients who underwent the LCSH procedure and 88 who underwent LSH with sacrocervicopexy were identified. Baseline demographic data were similar between the 2 groups. Operating time was significantly decreased in the LCSH group with median time of 129 minutes (interquartile range, 121–153) versus 199 minutes (interquartile range, 178.5–222.5; P < 0.001) in the traditional cohort. Six weeks after surgery, patients had equivalent POP-Q examinations and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory scores. At 6 months after surgery, patients similarly had no significant difference in POP-Q examination or scores on standardized questionnaires between the 2 groups. There were no mesh or suture erosions noted in either cohort at any time point. Conclusions: Laparoscopic cerclage sacrohysteropexy is a novel variation of traditional sacrohysteropexy and an alternative to LSH with sacrocervicopexy that minimizes the dissection and suturing required. This procedure appears to offer equivalent anatomic and subjective outcomes to traditional LSH with sacrocervicopexy with significantly decreased intraoperative time. Abstract : Laparoscopic cerclage sacrohysteropexy is a novel and simplified approach to uterovaginal prolapse that is comparable to traditional LSH with sacrocervicopexy.