Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1002/ijgo.15891
Veronica Tius, Martina Arcieri, Cristina Taliento, Giulia Pellecchia, Giampiero Capobianco, Tommaso Simoncini, Giovanni Panico, Daniela Caramazza, Giuseppe Campagna, Lorenza Driul, Giovanni Scambia, Alfredo Ercoli, Stefano Restaino, Giuseppe Vizzielli
{"title":"Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review.","authors":"Veronica Tius, Martina Arcieri, Cristina Taliento, Giulia Pellecchia, Giampiero Capobianco, Tommaso Simoncini, Giovanni Panico, Daniela Caramazza, Giuseppe Campagna, Lorenza Driul, Giovanni Scambia, Alfredo Ercoli, Stefano Restaino, Giuseppe Vizzielli","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.15891","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Literature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life-related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>We performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery-related morbidities were also extracted where available.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-28.33; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; P = 0.001; anterior compartment OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.26-4.30; I<sup>2</sup> = 12%; P = 0.007) and subjective success (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.42-7.17; I<sup>2</sup> = 39%; P = 0.005). No differences were found regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications, sexual dysfunction, and stress urinary incontinence rate after surgery. Hysteropexy showed shorter operative time and shorter hospital length with a pool mean difference of 27.37 min (95% CI 18.04-32.71; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; P < 0.001) and 0.7 days (95% CI 0.24-1.17; I<sup>2</sup> = 75%; P = 0.003), respectively. Concurrent hysterectomy was not associated with a higher rate of mesh-related complications (P = 0.53). No major differences were found regarding recurrence and reoperation rate (P = 0.10 and P = 0.93, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh-related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42024537270.</p>","PeriodicalId":14164,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15891","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Literature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life-related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH).

Objective: To summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process.

Search strategy: We performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar.

Selection criteria: We included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery-related morbidities were also extracted where available.

Data collection and analysis: A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0.

Main results: We included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-28.33; I2 = 0%; P = 0.001; anterior compartment OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.26-4.30; I2 = 12%; P = 0.007) and subjective success (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.42-7.17; I2 = 39%; P = 0.005). No differences were found regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications, sexual dysfunction, and stress urinary incontinence rate after surgery. Hysteropexy showed shorter operative time and shorter hospital length with a pool mean difference of 27.37 min (95% CI 18.04-32.71; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001) and 0.7 days (95% CI 0.24-1.17; I2 = 75%; P = 0.003), respectively. Concurrent hysterectomy was not associated with a higher rate of mesh-related complications (P = 0.53). No major differences were found regarding recurrence and reoperation rate (P = 0.10 and P = 0.93, respectively).

Conclusions: LTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh-related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation.

Prospero registration number: CRD42024537270.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹腔镜骶骨整形术同时进行子宫切除术或保留子宫:荟萃分析和系统综述。
背景:关于腹腔镜全子宫和/或子宫颈上位切除术(LTH/LSCH)与腹腔镜骶尾部结扎术(LSC)和微创骶尾部结扎术(LSH)之间的疗效和生活质量相关结果的比较,文献缺乏有力的证据:总结和比较有关这一主题的现有数据,为治疗决策过程提供有用的临床工具:我们对 PubMed (MEDLINE)、Web of Science 和 Gooogle Scholar 进行了系统研究:我们纳入了对 LTH/LSCH 与 LSC 和 LSH 至少一种疗效结果(客观或主观结果)进行比较的研究。数据收集与分析:使用Review Manager V.7.9.0进行随机效应荟萃分析,报告各组间的集合平均差和几率比(OR):我们共纳入了九项观察性研究。LTH/LSCH联合LSH的客观成功率(心尖区OR 7.95;95% 置信区间[CI] 2.23-28.33;I2 = 0%;P = 0.001;前区OR 2.23;95% CI 1.26-4.30;I2 = 12%;P = 0.007)和主观成功率(OR 3.19;95% CI 1.42-7.17;I2 = 39%;P = 0.005)明显更高。在术中、术后并发症、性功能障碍和术后压力性尿失禁率方面没有发现差异。子宫肌瘤剔除术的手术时间和住院时间更短,平均差异分别为27.37分钟(95% CI 18.04-32.71;I2 = 0%;P 2 = 75%;P = 0.003)。同时进行子宫切除术与较高的网片相关并发症发生率无关(P = 0.53)。在复发率和再次手术率方面没有发现重大差异(分别为P = 0.10和P = 0.93):结论:在盆腔器官脱垂手术中,LTH/LSCH 联合 LSC 的客观和主观疗效均优于单纯 LSH,尤其是在顶端和前部区域,而且术后性功能障碍和网片相关并发症的发生率也不高。强烈建议希望保留子宫的患者进行充分的术前咨询:CRD42024537270。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
493
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics publishes articles on all aspects of basic and clinical research in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and related subjects, with emphasis on matters of worldwide interest.
期刊最新文献
Routine ultrasound does not improve instrument placement at operative vaginal delivery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Beyond borders: The global impact of violating reproductive human rights. Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN Journal guidelines. Menstrual management using the etonogestrel implant in individuals with intellectual disabilities in Joinville, Brazil. Anticoagulant therapy in pregnant women with mechanical and bioprosthetic heart valves.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1