scholarly journals Perioperative complications and long term consequences of sacrospinous ligament fixation and abdominal sacrocolpopexy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
ERTAN ZAN ◽  
BÜLENT DURAN
Keyword(s):  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation ◽  
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy ◽  
Long Term Consequences

Perioperative complications in abdominal sacrocolpopexy and vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation procedures

2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fuat Demirci ◽  
Ismail Ozdemir ◽  
Asli Somunkiran ◽  
Samet Topuz ◽  
Cem Iyibozkurt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation ◽  
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy

scholarly journals Perioperative Complications in Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy, Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation and Prolift Procedures

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fuat Demirci ◽  
Oya Demirci ◽  
Zehra Nihal Dolgu ◽  
Birgul Karakoc ◽  
Elif Demirci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation ◽  
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy

scholarly journals Comparison of the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation and sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenju Zhang ◽  
Willy Cecilia Cheon ◽  
Li Zhang ◽  
Xiaozhong Wang ◽  
Yuzhen Wei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Gastrointestinal Complications ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation ◽  
Apical Support ◽  
Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) have been used for the restoration of apical support. Studies comparing sacrocolpopexy and SSLF have reported conflicting results. We aim to assess the current evidence regarding efficiency and the complications of sacrocolpopexy compared with SSLF. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review meta-analysis to assess the two surgical approaches. Results 5Five randomized controlled trials, 8 retrospective studies, and 2 prospective studies including 4,120 cases were identified. Compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), SSLF was associated with a lower success rate (88.32% and 91.45%; OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.29–0.95; p = 0.03), higher recurrence (11.58% and 8.32%; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.04–3.46; p = 0.04), and dyspareunia rate (14.36% and 4.67%; OR 3.10; 95% CI 1.28–7.50; p = 0.01). Patients in this group may benefit from shorter operative time (weighted mean difference −25.08 min; 95% CI −42.29 to −7.88; p = 0.004), lower hemorrhage rate (0.85% and 2.58%; OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25–0.85; p = 0.009), wound infection rate (3.30% and 5.76%; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39–0.77; p = 0.0005), and fewer gastrointestinal complications (1.33% and 6.19%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15–0.76; p = 0.009). Conclusion Both sacrocolpopexy and SSLF offer an efficient alternative to the restoration of apical support. When anatomical durability and sexual function is a priority, ASC may be the preferred option. When considering factors of mesh erosion, operative time, gastrointestinal complications, hemorrhage, and wound infections, SSLF may be the better option.

NON-ORAL POSTER 26: Long-term Outcomes Following Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-89
Author(s):  
B S. Hampton ◽  
K S. Sandhu ◽  
S W. Smilen ◽  
C Kwon ◽  
R F. Porges
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

scholarly journals Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical prolapse: perioperative outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina G. Gabra ◽  
Veronica Winget ◽  
Mohammad T. Torabi ◽  
Ilana Addis ◽  
Kenneth Hatch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Uterosacral Ligament ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Uterosacral Ligament Suspension ◽  
Confounding Factors ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

Abstract Background Pelvic organ prolapse can be repaired vaginally or laparoscopically. Studies comparing vaginal repair with sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) or uterosacral ligament suspension (V-USLS) have found no difference in functional or adverse outcomes. Laparoscopic USLS (L-USLS) is becoming a popular treatment for pelvic organ prolapse because it has a low rate of ureteral compromise. To date, no studies have compared perioperative outcomes between L-USLS and SSLF. The objective of this study is to compare the rates of perioperative complications between these two methods. Methods This was a retrospective chart review of 243 consecutive patients who underwent L-USLS or SSLF at one institution between March 2017 and August 2019 for apical pelvic organ prolapse. Descriptive data was analyzed as appropriate with Student’s t tests and chi-square. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess predictors of perioperative complications. Results Preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Stage (POP-Q) was similar between the two cohorts (p = 0.23). After adjusting for confounding factors, L-USLS was associated with a longer operative time (118 vs 142 min, p < 0.01) and shorter length of hospitalization (0.68 vs 1.06 days, p < 0.01). The estimated blood loss between the procedures was not statistically significant after adjusting for confounding factors. There was no difference in perioperative complication rates between L-USLS and SSLF (5% vs 7%, p = 0.55). No clinical risk factors were significantly associated with perioperative complications. Conclusion We did not find a difference in complications between L-USLS and SSLF.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document