Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, UC San Diego Health, San Diego, California.
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1054-1065. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.12812.
Vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension is commonly performed for uterovaginal prolapse. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy is an alternative option.
To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: At 9 clinical sites in the US Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse were enrolled in a randomized superiority clinical trial between April 2013 and February 2015. The study was designed for primary analysis when the last randomized participant reached 3 years of follow-up in February 2018.
Ninety-three women were randomized to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 were randomized to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.
The primary treatment failure composite outcome (re-treatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) was evaluated with survival models. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes and adverse events, and were evaluated with longitudinal models or contingency tables as appropriate.
A total of 183 participants (mean age, 66 years) were randomized, 175 were included in the trial, and 169 (97%) completed the 3-year follow-up. The primary outcome was not significantly different among women who underwent hysteropexy vs hysterectomy through 48 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.38-1.02]; P = .06; 36-month adjusted failure incidence, 26% vs 38%). Mean (SD) operative time was lower in the hysteropexy group vs the hysterectomy group (111.5 [39.7] min vs 156.7 [43.9] min; difference, -45.2 [95% CI, -57.7 to -32.7]; P = <.001). Adverse events in the hysteropexy vs hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs 7%), granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs 21%).
Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery, vaginal mesh hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension did not result in a significantly lower rate of the composite prolapse outcome after 3 years. However, imprecision in study results precludes a definitive conclusion, and further research is needed to assess whether vaginal mesh hysteropexy is more effective than vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802281.
阴道子宫切除术加缝线顶悬吊术常用于治疗子宫阴道脱垂。经阴道网片子宫固定术是另一种选择。
比较阴道子宫切除术加缝线顶悬吊术和经阴道网片子宫固定术的疗效和不良事件。
设计、地点和参与者:在美国骨盆底障碍网络的 9 个临床地点,183 名绝经后有症状的子宫阴道脱垂妇女参加了 2013 年 4 月至 2015 年 2 月期间进行的一项随机优势临床试验。当最后一名随机参与者在 2018 年 2 月达到 3 年随访时,该研究设计用于主要分析。
93 名妇女被随机分配接受经阴道网片子宫固定术,90 名妇女被随机分配接受阴道子宫切除术加子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术。
主要治疗失败复合结局(脱垂复发、处女膜外脱垂或脱垂症状)采用生存模型进行评估。次要结局包括手术结局和不良事件,并根据需要采用纵向模型或列联表进行评估。
共有 183 名参与者(平均年龄 66 岁)被随机分组,175 名参与者被纳入试验,169 名(97%)完成了 3 年随访。在 48 个月时,经阴道网片子宫固定术与子宫切除术的主要结局无显著差异(调整后的危险比,0.62[95%CI,0.38-1.02];P=0.06;36 个月时调整后的失败发生率,26%vs.38%)。网片子宫固定术组的手术时间(111.5[39.7]分钟)明显低于子宫切除术组(156.7[43.9]分钟;差值,-45.2[95%CI,-57.7 至-32.7];P<0.001)。网片子宫固定术组与子宫切除术组的不良事件分别为网片暴露(8%vs.0%)、术中输尿管扭曲(0%vs.7%)、12 周后肉芽组织(1%vs.11%)和 12 周后缝线暴露(3%vs.21%)。
在有症状的子宫阴道脱垂接受阴道手术的妇女中,与阴道子宫切除术加子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术相比,阴道网片子宫固定术在 3 年后复合脱垂结局的发生率并没有显著降低。然而,研究结果的不准确性排除了明确的结论,需要进一步研究以评估阴道网片子宫固定术是否比阴道子宫切除术加子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术更有效。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT01802281。