C. McKenzie, Christopher L. Crafton, A. Plair, C. Matthews
{"title":"使用锚定与缝合捕获装置固定骶棘韧带:一项前瞻性队列研究","authors":"C. McKenzie, Christopher L. Crafton, A. Plair, C. Matthews","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The aim of the study was to compare rates of persistent gluteal and posterior thigh pain, procedural efficacy, and postoperative complications at 1 year after sacrospinous ligament fixation using either an anchor-based or suture-capturing device. Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated outcomes 1 year after operation in patients previously enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing an anchor-based versus suture-capturing device for sacrospinous fixation. Symptom scores were evaluated via Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7. Pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale. Composite surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen or C-point greater than one half down the vagina, vaginal bulge symptoms, or a need for prolapse retreatment via surgery or pessary management. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed. Results Forty three (21 anchors, 22 sutures) of the original 47 patients (91%) returned for follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 15.4 months, age was 69 years old, body mass index was 30, and preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage was 2.7. No patients reported significant increase in pain at sacrospinous fixation site above baseline, and there was no significant difference in posterior thigh or gluteal pain on the side of fixation compared with baseline in the anchor-based or suture-capture groups (−0.2 ± 0.9 and −0.5 ± 1.6, respectively, P = 0.719). Two patients demonstrated surgical failure (anchor group) due to bulge symptoms (P = 0.233). The devices similarly improved Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (−71.0 ± 45.5 vs −66.3 ± 64.4, P = 0.652) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 (−40.6 ± 62.4 vs −26.4 ± 65.7, P = 0.768) scores. Conclusions Persistent gluteal or posterior thigh pain and surgical failure is uncommon 12 months after sacrospinous fixation and was not associated with the type of fixation device.","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"28 1","pages":"131 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using an Anchor Versus Suture-Capturing Device: A Prospective Cohort Study\",\"authors\":\"C. McKenzie, Christopher L. Crafton, A. Plair, C. Matthews\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective The aim of the study was to compare rates of persistent gluteal and posterior thigh pain, procedural efficacy, and postoperative complications at 1 year after sacrospinous ligament fixation using either an anchor-based or suture-capturing device. Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated outcomes 1 year after operation in patients previously enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing an anchor-based versus suture-capturing device for sacrospinous fixation. Symptom scores were evaluated via Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7. Pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale. Composite surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen or C-point greater than one half down the vagina, vaginal bulge symptoms, or a need for prolapse retreatment via surgery or pessary management. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed. Results Forty three (21 anchors, 22 sutures) of the original 47 patients (91%) returned for follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 15.4 months, age was 69 years old, body mass index was 30, and preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage was 2.7. No patients reported significant increase in pain at sacrospinous fixation site above baseline, and there was no significant difference in posterior thigh or gluteal pain on the side of fixation compared with baseline in the anchor-based or suture-capture groups (−0.2 ± 0.9 and −0.5 ± 1.6, respectively, P = 0.719). Two patients demonstrated surgical failure (anchor group) due to bulge symptoms (P = 0.233). The devices similarly improved Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (−71.0 ± 45.5 vs −66.3 ± 64.4, P = 0.652) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 (−40.6 ± 62.4 vs −26.4 ± 65.7, P = 0.768) scores. Conclusions Persistent gluteal or posterior thigh pain and surgical failure is uncommon 12 months after sacrospinous fixation and was not associated with the type of fixation device.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"131 - 135\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using an Anchor Versus Suture-Capturing Device: A Prospective Cohort Study
Objective The aim of the study was to compare rates of persistent gluteal and posterior thigh pain, procedural efficacy, and postoperative complications at 1 year after sacrospinous ligament fixation using either an anchor-based or suture-capturing device. Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated outcomes 1 year after operation in patients previously enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing an anchor-based versus suture-capturing device for sacrospinous fixation. Symptom scores were evaluated via Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7. Pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale. Composite surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen or C-point greater than one half down the vagina, vaginal bulge symptoms, or a need for prolapse retreatment via surgery or pessary management. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed. Results Forty three (21 anchors, 22 sutures) of the original 47 patients (91%) returned for follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 15.4 months, age was 69 years old, body mass index was 30, and preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage was 2.7. No patients reported significant increase in pain at sacrospinous fixation site above baseline, and there was no significant difference in posterior thigh or gluteal pain on the side of fixation compared with baseline in the anchor-based or suture-capture groups (−0.2 ± 0.9 and −0.5 ± 1.6, respectively, P = 0.719). Two patients demonstrated surgical failure (anchor group) due to bulge symptoms (P = 0.233). The devices similarly improved Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (−71.0 ± 45.5 vs −66.3 ± 64.4, P = 0.652) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 (−40.6 ± 62.4 vs −26.4 ± 65.7, P = 0.768) scores. Conclusions Persistent gluteal or posterior thigh pain and surgical failure is uncommon 12 months after sacrospinous fixation and was not associated with the type of fixation device.
期刊介绍:
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.