Efficacy of Sacrospinous Fixation or Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Stages III and IV: Randomized Clinical Trial

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of the surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in stages III and IV by sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) or uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) by comparing anatomical and subjective cure rates and quality-of-life parameters (through the version validated for the Portuguese language of the Prolapse Quality of Life [P-QoL] questionnaire) under two definitions: genital prolapse Ba, Bp, and C < −1 (stage I) and Ba, Bp, and C ≤ 0 (stage II).

Materials and Methods After we obtained approval from the Ethics Committee (under CAAE 0833/06) and registered the study in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 01347021), 51 patients were randomized into two groups: the USLS group (N = 26) and the SSLF group (N = 25), with follow-up 6 and 12 months after the procedures.

Results There was a significant improvement in the P-QoL score and anatomical measurements of all compartments in both groups after 12 months (p < 0.001). The anatomical cure rates in the USLS and SSLF groups, considering stage 1, were of 34.6% and 40% (anterior) respectively; of 100% both for groups (apical); and of 73.1% and 92% (posterior) respectively. The rates of adverse outcomes were of 42% (N = 11) and 36% (N = 11) for the USLS and SSLF groups respectively (p = 0.654), and those outcomes were excessive bleeding, bladder perforation (intraoperative) or gluteal pain, and urinary infection (postoperative), among others, without differences between the groups.

Conclusion High cure rates in all compartments were observed according to the anatomical criterion (stage I), without differences in P-QoL scores and complications either with USLS or SSLF for the surgical treatment of accentuated POP.

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a eficácia e os resultados do tratamento cirúrgico para prolapso de órgãos pélvicos (POP) nos estágios III e IV, por meio da técnica de fixação do ligamento sacroespinal (FLSE) ou suspensão do ligamento útero-sacro (SLUS), ao comparar os índices de cura anatômicos, subjetivos, e os parâmetros de qualidade de vida (por meio do questionário Prolapse Quality of Life [P-QoL] validado para a língua portuguesa) sob duas definições: prolapso genital Ba, Bp e C < −1 (estágio I) e Ba, Bp e C ≤ 0 (estágio II).

Materiais e Métodos Após aprovação do Comitê de Ética (CAAE 0833/06) e registro no ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 01347021), 51 pacientes foram randomizadas em dois grupos: grupo SLUS (N = 26) e (2) grupo FLSE (N = 25), com seguimento de 6 e 12 meses.

Resultados Houve melhora significativa nas pontuações no P-QoL e nas medidas anatômicas de todos os compartimentos em ambos os grupos após 12 meses (p < 0,001). As taxas de cura anatômica nos grupos SLUS e FLSE , considerando o estágio 1, foram de 34,6% e 40% (anterior), respectivamente; de 100% em ambos os grupos (apical); e de 73,1% e 92% (posterior), respectivamente. As taxas de resultados adversos foram de 42% (N = 11) e 36% (N = 11), respectivamente, nos grupos SLUS e FLSE (p = 0,654), e elas foram sangramento excessivo, perfuração da bexiga (intraoperatória) ou dor glútea, e infecção urinária (pós-operatória), entre outras, sem diferenças entre os grupos.

Conclusão Altas taxas de cura em todos os compartimentos foram observadas segundo critério anatômico (estágio I), sem diferença quanto às pontuações no P-QoL e às complicações tanto com SLUS quanto com FLSE para o tratamento cirúrgico de POP acentuado.

Contributions

SBM: project development, data collection, writing/proofreading/editing of the manuscript; RAC: project development, proofreading/editing of the manuscript; CCT: project development, data collection, proofreading/editing of the manuscript; GVM: proofreading/editing of the manuscript; LMO: data collection, proofreading/editing of the manuscript; PCFMJ: proofreading/editing of the manuscript; MMD: data collection, proofreading/editing of the manuscript; MJBCG: project development, proofreading/editing of the manuscript and MGFS: project development, writing/proofreading/editing of the manuscript.

^* In memoriam.

Publication History

Received: 22 November 2022

Accepted: 13 May 2023

Article published online:
09 November 2023

© 2023. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

• References

• 1 Brown HW, Hegde A, Huebner M, Neels H, Barnes HC, Marquini GV. et al. International urogynecology consultation chapter 1 committee 2: Epidemiology of pelvic organ prolapse: prevalence, incidence, natural history, and service needs. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2022; 33 (02) 173-187 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-05018-z.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Pelvic Organ Prolapse: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 214. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 134 (05) e126-e142 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003519.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Ugianskiene A, Davila GW, Su TH. FIGO Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Committee. FIGO review of statements on use of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019; 147 (02) 147-155 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12932.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 This document was developed by the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) Guidelines and Statements Committee with assistance of Cassandra L. Carberry, MD, Paul K. Tulikangas, Beri M. Ridgeway, Sarah A. Collins, and Rony A. Adam. This peer-reviewed document reflects clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. Its content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical judgment, diagnosis or treatment. The ultimate judgment regarding any specific procedure or treatment is to be made by the physician and patient in light of all circumstances presented by the patient. American Urogynecologic Society Best Practice Statement: Evaluation and Counseling of Patients With Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2017; 23 (05) 281-287 DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000424. Erratum in: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018 May/Jun;24(3):256. PMID: 28846554
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202 (02) 124-134 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.052.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Petri E, Ashok K. Sacrospinous vaginal fixation–current status. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90 (05) 429-436 DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01084.x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA takes action to protect women's health, orders manufacturers of surgical mesh intended for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to stop selling all devices. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2019. . Available at: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm636114.htmRetrieved July 17, 2019
  Google Scholar
• 8 Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler 2nd TL, Schaffer J, Chen Z. et al; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (03) 600-609 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J. et al; International Urogynecological Association, International Continence Society. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2010; 29 (01) 4-20 DOI: 10.1002/nau.20798.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Morley GW, DeLancey JO. Sacrospinous ligament fixation for eversion of the vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158 (04) 872-881
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, Kuehl TJ. A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183 (06) 1365-1373 , discussion 1373–1374
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S. P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2005; 16 (03) 176-181 , discussion 181 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-004-1225-x.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J. et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2011; 22 (01) 3-15 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1324-9.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet 2005; 365 (9467) 1348-1353 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61034-3.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. [published erratum appears in JAMA 2015;313:2287] JAMA 2014; 311 (10) 1023-1034
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Larson KA, Smith T, Berger MB, Abernethy M, Mead S, Fenner DE. et al. Long-term patient satisfaction with michigan four-wall sacrospinous ligament suspension for prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (05) 967-975
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 10 (10) CD012376 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Morgan DM, Larson K. Uterosacral and sacrospinous ligament suspension for restoration of apical vaginal support. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 53 (01) 72-85 DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181cf2d51.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE. Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (2 Pt 1): 367-373 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195888d. Erratum in: Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jun;113(6):1377. PMID: 19155908
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA. Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 185 (06) 1299-1304 , discussion 1304–1306 DOI: 10.1067/mob.2001.119081.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svärdsudd KF. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180 (2 Pt 1): 299-305 DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70203-6.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Kenton K, Meikle S, Schaffer J. et al; Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 2008; 300 (11) 1311-1316 DOI: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA 2014; 311 (10) 1023-1034 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.1719. Erratum in: JAMA. 2015 Jun 9;313(22):2287. PMID: 24618964; PMCID: PMC4083455
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Meyer I, Whitworth RE, Lukacz ES, Smith AL, Sung VW, Visco AG. et al; NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health. Outcomes of native tissue transvaginal apical approaches in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2020; 31 (10) 2155-2164 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04271-y.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Delancey JO, Hurd WW. Size of the urogenital hiatus in the levator ani muscles in normal women and women with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91 (03) 364-368 DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00682-0.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Vaughan MH, Siddiqui NY, Newcomb LK, Weidner AC, Kawasaki A, Visco AG, Bradley MS. Surgical Alteration of Genital Hiatus Size and Anatomic Failure After Vaginal Vault Suspension. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (06) 1137-1144 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002593.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar