JOURNAL ARTICLE

Is hysterectomy necessary for laparoscopic pelvic floor repair? A prospective study

David M B Rosen, Anshumala Shukla, Gregory M Cario, Mark A Carlton, Danny Chou
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 2008, 15 (6): 729-34
18971137

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the addition of hysterectomy to laparoscopic pelvic floor repair has any impact on the short-term (perioperative) or long-term (prolapse outcome) effects of the surgery.

DESIGN: A controlled prospective trial (Canadian Task Force classification II-1).

SETTING: Private and public hospitals affiliated with a single institution.

PATIENTS: A total of 64 patients with uterovaginal prolapse pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stage 2 to 4 had consent for laparoscopic pelvic floor repair from January 2005 through January 2006 (32 patients in each treatment arm). Patients self-selected to undergo hysterectomy in addition to their surgery.

INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into group A (laparoscopic pelvic floor repair with hysterectomy) or group B (laparoscopic pelvic floor repair alone). All patients had laparoscopic pelvic floor repair in at least 1 compartment, whereas 52 patients had global pelvic floor prolapse requiring multicompartment repair. Burch colposuspension and/or additional vaginal procedures were performed at the discretion of the surgeon in each case.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Symptoms of prolapse and pelvic organ prolapse quantification system assessments were collected preoperatively, perioperatively, and at 6 weeks, 12 months, and 24 months postoperatively. Validated mental and physical health questionnaires (Short-Form Health Survey) were also completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 months. No demographic differences occurred between the groups. Time of surgery was greater in group A (+35 minutes), as was estimated blood loss and inpatient stay, although the latter 2 results had no clinically significant impact. No difference between groups was detected in the rate of de novo postoperative symptoms. At 12 months, 4 (12.9%) patients in group A had recurrent prolapse as did 6 (21.4%) patients in group B. At 24 months these figures were 6 (22.2%) and 6 (21.4%), respectively. These differences were not statistically significant (p=.500 at 12 months and .746 at 24 months). In the group not having hysterectomy, 4 (14.3%) of 28 patients had cervical elongation or level-1 prolapse by the 12-month assessment.

CONCLUSION: The addition of total laparoscopic hysterectomy to laparoscopic pelvic floor repair adds approximately 35 minutes to surgical time with no difference in the rate of perioperative or postoperative complications or prolapse outcome. Leaving the uterus in situ, however, is associated with a risk of cervical elongation potentially requiring further surgery. Laparoscopic pelvic floor repair is successful in 80% of patients at 2 years.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
18971137
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"