Campbell Jennifer, Pedroletti Corinne, Ekhed Linn, Nüssler Emil, Strandell Annika
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Women's Health, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Blå Stråket 6, 413 46, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Int Urogynecol J. 2018 Jun;29(6):821-829. doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3491-4. Epub 2017 Oct 7.
Innovations in suturing devices have facilitated sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) for the correction of vaginal vault prolapse. It is uncertain if outcomes using suturing devices differ from those using a traditional suturing technique. We hypothesize that no difference exists in the efficacy and safety 1 year after SSF for vault prolapse performed with suturing devices or using a traditional technique. The objective was to compare SSF using a suturing device with traditional SSF for the treatment of vault prolapse, regarding symptoms of prolapse recurrence, patient satisfaction, incidence of re-operation, and complications 1 year postoperatively.
We carried out a retrospective cohort study using register-based national data from 2006 to 2013. The Swedish Quality Register of Gynecological Surgery includes assessments pre-operatively, at hospital admittance, surgery, discharge, and questionnaires at 8 weeks and 1 year after surgery. Demographic variables and surgical methods were included in multivariate logistic regression analyses.
In the suturing device group (SDG, n = 353), 71.5% were asymptomatic of recurrence after 1 year compared with 78.7% in the traditional SSF group (TSG, n = 195); risk difference - 7.3% (95%CI -15.2%; 0.7%). Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for being asymptomatic 1 year postoperatively was 0.56 (95%CI 0.31; 1.02, p = 0.057). Patient satisfaction was similar in SDG and TSG (78.1% vs 78.4%). Reoperation occurred in 7.4% in the SDG compared with 3.6% in the TSG, risk difference 3.8% (95%CI 0.0%; 7.5%), aOR 3.55 (95%CI 1.10; 11.44, p = 0.03).
Patient satisfaction was similar 1 year after SSF, despite symptoms of recurrence being more likely and reoperation more common after using a suturing device compared with a traditional technique. The methods did not differ with regard to surgical complications.
缝合器械的创新推动了骶棘韧带固定术(SSF)在阴道穹窿脱垂矫正中的应用。使用缝合器械的手术效果与传统缝合技术的效果是否存在差异尚不确定。我们假设,对于阴道穹窿脱垂,使用缝合器械进行SSF与采用传统技术进行SSF在术后1年的疗效和安全性方面没有差异。目的是比较使用缝合器械的SSF与传统SSF治疗阴道穹窿脱垂在脱垂复发症状、患者满意度、再次手术发生率及术后1年并发症方面的情况。
我们利用2006年至2013年基于登记的全国性数据进行了一项回顾性队列研究。瑞典妇科手术质量登记系统包括术前、入院时、手术时、出院时的评估,以及术后8周和1年的问卷调查。人口统计学变量和手术方法纳入多因素逻辑回归分析。
在缝合器械组(SDG,n = 353)中,1年后71.5%无症状复发,而传统SSF组(TSG,n = 195)为78.7%;风险差异为-7.3%(95%CI -15.2%;0.7%)。术后1年无症状的调整优势比(aOR)为0.56(95%CI 0.31;1.02,p = 0.057)。SDG组和TSG组的患者满意度相似(78.1%对78.4%)。SDG组再次手术发生率为7.4%,TSG组为3.6%,风险差异为3.8%(95%CI 0.0%;7.5%),aOR为3.55(95%CI 1.10;11.44,p = 0.03)。
SSF术后1年患者满意度相似,尽管与传统技术相比,使用缝合器械后复发症状更可能出现,再次手术更常见。两种方法在手术并发症方面没有差异。