Cited by 50Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsGynecological conditions and treatments

Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament hysteropexy vs total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for anterior and apical prolapse: surgical outcome and patient satisfaction

Haj-Yahya, Rani, Chill, Henry H., Levin, Gabriel, Reuveni-Salzman, Adi, Shveiky, David·2020·Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

Abstract

Study objective To compare anatomic and clinical cure rates as well as patient satisfaction between uterine-preserving laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with apical and anterior prolapse.Design Single-center clinical comparative retrospective cohort study.Setting A female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery service at a tertiary teaching hospital.Patients Women with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent surgical treatment for their condition between July 2010 and December 2015.Interventions All women underwent laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension or total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for apical and anterior prolapse. Concomitant procedures included anterior and posterior repair, as well as a midurethral sling when indicated.Measurements and main results Preoperative and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measurements were obtained. The primary outcome was clinical cure rate. Secondary outcomes included anatomic cure rate and outcomes of site-specific POP-Q points Ba, C, and Bp for the whole cohort. Patient satisfaction was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire. During the study period, 106 women underwent transvaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, and 53 women had laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension. At a mean follow-up of 14.7 ± 13.23 months for the vaginal group and 17.5 ± 15.84 months for the laparoscopic group (p = .29), there were significant improvements of POP-Q points Ba, C, and Bp (p < .0001 for all comparisons in both groups). The clinical cure rate was 96% in the vaginal group and 98% in the laparoscopic group (p = .50). The anatomic cure rate was 85.4% in the vaginal group and 93.75% in the laparoscopic group (p = .11) Patient satisfaction was high in both groups.Conclusion In appropriately selected patients, laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension is a valid uterus-preserving option for women with anterior and apical prolapse, associated with high anatomic and clinical cure rates and patient satisfaction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.012

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Retrospective chart reviews found that vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy versus hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension had similar rates of apex durability, and laparoscopic uterine-preserving surgery compared to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension had similar rates of anatomic and clinical cure.

    “A retrospective chart review (n¼200) found that vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy versus hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension had similar rates of apex durability (98.2% vs 96.4%, P¼0.90) defined as point C at or above the hymen.21 A retrospective chart review (n¼151) found that laparoscopic UP surgery compared to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension had similar rates of anatomic”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haj-Yahya, R., Chill, H. H., Levin, G., Reuveni-Salzman, A., & Shveiky, D.
Affiliations
Hadassah Medical Center (IL)
Corresponding author
Shveiky, David
Venue
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
88-93
ISSN
1553-4650 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2916184373
Cited by
50
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
4.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
total vaginal hysterectomy, uterine-preserving surgery, pelvic organ prolapse, apical prolapse, POP-Q, clinical cure rate, patient satisfaction, midurethral sling, anterior repair, posterior repair, minimally invasive gynecologic surgery
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hysterectomy, Vaginal, Ligaments, Middle Aged, Laparoscopy, Retrospective Studies, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Uterine Prolapse, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Suburethral Slings, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review