Benefit and safety of 28-day transdermal estrogen regiment during vaginal hysterectomy (a controlled trial)

Maturitas ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antovska Vesna ◽  
Basheska Neli
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Izett-Kay ◽  
Philip Rahmanou ◽  
Rufus J. Cartwright ◽  
Natalia Price ◽  
Simon R. Jackson

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy offers a uterine-sparing alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, although randomised comparative data are lacking. This study was aimed at comparing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Methods A randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse was performed, with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. The primary outcome was reoperation for apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported mesh complications, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification, Patient Global Impression of Improvement in prolapse symptoms and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms, Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) and PISQ-12 questionnaires. Results A total of 101 women were randomised and 62 women attended for follow-up at a mean of 100 months postoperatively (range 84–119 months). None reported a mesh-associated complication. The risk of reoperation for apical prolapse was 17.2% following vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and 6.1% following laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH; relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.07–1.68, p = 0.17). Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was associated with a statistically significantly higher apical suspension (POP-Q point C −5 vs −4.25, p = 0.02) and longer total vaginal length (9 cm vs 6 cm, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the change in ICIQ-VS scores between the two groups (ICIQ-VS change −22 vs −25, p = 0.59). Conclusion Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension have comparable reoperation rates and subjective outcomes. Potential advantages of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy include a lower risk of apical reoperation, greater apical support and increased total vaginal length.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 1801-1803
Author(s):  
Nazia Sajjad ◽  
Sara Qadir ◽  
Rukhsana Kasi ◽  
Tayyaba Rasheed ◽  
Fozia Unar ◽  
...  

Objectives: To compare the frequency of satisfactory quality of life between vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal hysterectomy. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Niazi Medical & Dental College, Sargodha from 1st April 2020 to 31st December 2020. Methodology: Ninety patients were comprised and they were divided in two groups; group A (vaginal hysterectomy) and Group B (abdominal hysterectomy) were performed. Hysterectomies (vaginal or abdominal) were performed by consultant gynecologist having experience at having least 5 years). Results: Mean age of the patients was 49.82±3.207 years, mean age of the patients of group A was 49.82±3.193 years and mean age of the patients of group B was 49.82±3.256 years. Satisfactory quality of life was noted in 38 (84.44%) patients of study group A and 29 (64.44%) patients of study group B. Statistically significant (P = 0.051) difference between the frequency of satisfactory quality of life between the both groups was noted. Conclusion: Results of this study reveals that post hysterectomy quality of life found more satisfactory in vaginal hysterectomy group as compared to abdominal hysterectomy group. Insignificant association of post hysterectomy quality of life with age group, marital status, parity and socio-economical status was found. Findings of this study also revealed that post hysterectomy satisfactory quality of life is not associated with education of the patients. Key words: Hysterectomy, Quality of life, abdomen, vagina, WHO, Uterus


2014 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana-Marija Hristovska ◽  
Billy B. Kristensen ◽  
Marianne A. Rasmussen ◽  
Yvonne H. Rasmussen ◽  
Lisbeth B. Elving ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document