• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

阴道穹隆脱垂的手术修复;同侧子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术与骶棘韧带固定术的比较——一项全国性队列研究。

Surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse; a comparison between ipsilateral uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation-a nationwide cohort study.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.

University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Jun;32(6):1441-1449. doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04515-x. Epub 2020 Sep 8.

DOI:10.1007/s00192-020-04515-x
PMID:32897459
Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Hysterectomy is frequently performed and associated with increased risk of subsequent genital prolapse including vaginal vault prolapse. Ipsilateral uterosacral ligament suspension (IUSLS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) are two commonly performed surgical techniques to treat vaginal vault prolapse. There is no consensus on the ideal operation technique. The aim of this study was to compare IUSLS and SSLF to treat vaginal vault prolapse based on the number of repeat surgeries.

METHODS

Previously hysterectomized patients operated on with IUSLS or SSLF in Denmark in 2010-2016 were included in this nationwide register-based cohort study and followed until June 2017. Data were obtained from Danish National Databases, to which reporting is mandatory by law, entailing high validity and completeness of data. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusted for age, preoperative prolapse stage, smoking, BMI, and previous prolapse surgery.

RESULTS

In total, 744 patients were included; 384 underwent IUSLS while 360 underwent SSLF. After 5 years, 6.5% of patients operated on with IUSLS and 21.8% operated on with SSLF had a repeat surgery in the apical compartment and 12.4% and 30.6% in any compartment, respectively. The risk of repeat surgery was 4.8 times higher after SSLF compared to IUSLS [confidence interval (CI): 2.7-8.4] in the apical compartment and 2.4 times higher (CI: 1.2-5.1) in the anterior compartment. No difference was seen in the posterior compartment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study finds significantly higher numbers of repeat surgeries after SSLF compared to after IUSLS in a Danish nationwide cohort.

摘要

引言和假设

子宫切除术经常进行,并且与随后的生殖器脱垂(包括阴道穹窿脱垂)的风险增加相关。同侧子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术(IUSLS)和骶棘韧带固定术(SSLF)是两种常用于治疗阴道穹窿脱垂的手术技术。目前对于理想的手术技术尚未达成共识。本研究的目的是比较 IUSLS 和 SSLF 治疗阴道穹窿脱垂的效果,主要依据是再次手术的数量。

方法

本研究是一项基于丹麦全国性注册的队列研究,纳入了 2010 年至 2016 年期间在丹麦接受 IUSLS 或 SSLF 手术的、此前曾接受过子宫切除术的患者,并随访至 2017 年 6 月。数据来自丹麦国家数据库,法律要求这些数据库必须报告,这保证了数据的高度有效性和完整性。使用 Cox 比例风险回归分析对年龄、术前脱垂阶段、吸烟、BMI 和既往脱垂手术等因素进行调整。

结果

共纳入 744 例患者,其中 384 例行 IUSLS,360 例行 SSLF。5 年后,IUSLS 组中有 6.5%的患者在前哨间隙再次手术,而 SSLF 组中有 21.8%的患者再次手术;IUSLS 组中有 12.4%的患者在任何间隙再次手术,而 SSLF 组中有 30.6%的患者再次手术。SSL 组在前哨间隙的再次手术风险是 IUSLS 组的 4.8 倍(95%CI:2.7-8.4),在前部间隙的再次手术风险是 IUSLS 组的 2.4 倍(95%CI:1.2-5.1),而后部间隙未见差异。

结论

本研究在丹麦全国性队列中发现,与 IUSLS 相比,SSL 术后再次手术的数量明显更高。

相似文献

1
Surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse; a comparison between ipsilateral uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation-a nationwide cohort study.阴道穹隆脱垂的手术修复;同侧子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术与骶棘韧带固定术的比较——一项全国性队列研究。
Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Jun;32(6):1441-1449. doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04515-x. Epub 2020 Sep 8.
2
Vaginal vault prolapse and recurrent surgery: A nationwide observational cohort study.阴道穹隆脱垂和再次手术:一项全国性观察队列研究。
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022 May;101(5):542-549. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14341. Epub 2022 Mar 2.
3
Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.骶棘韧带固定术与阴道子宫切除术联合子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术治疗 2 度或以上子宫脱垂的疗效比较:多中心随机试验的随访观察。
BMJ. 2019 Sep 10;366:l5149. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l5149.
4
Effect of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation With or Without Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Pelvic Organ Vaginal Prolapse on Surgical Outcomes and Prolapse Symptoms at 5 Years in the OPTIMAL Randomized Clinical Trial.Uterosacral 韧带悬吊术与骶棘韧带固定术联合或不联合围手术期行为疗法治疗盆腔器官阴道脱垂 5 年的手术结果和脱垂症状的影响:OPTIMAL 随机临床试验。
JAMA. 2018 Apr 17;319(15):1554-1565. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.2827.
5
Outcomes of the anterior approach versus posterior sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse.前路与后路骶棘韧带固定治疗盆腔器官脱垂的结局比较。
Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Jul;33(7):1857-1862. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05171-z. Epub 2022 Mar 28.
6
Five-year surgical outcomes of transvaginal apical approaches in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse.经阴道顶入式手术治疗中重度盆腔器官脱垂的 5 年手术效果
Int Urogynecol J. 2023 Sep;34(9):2171-2181. doi: 10.1007/s00192-023-05501-9. Epub 2023 Apr 11.
7
Characteristics associated with composite surgical failure over 5 years of women in a randomized trial of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.在一项骶棘韧带固定术联合移植物与阴道子宫切除术联合子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术治疗女性的随机试验中,5 年内与复合手术失败相关的特征。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jan;228(1):63.e1-63.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.07.048. Epub 2022 Aug 2.
8
Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.骶棘韧带子宫固定术与子宫骶骨韧带悬吊的阴道子宫切除术治疗2期及以上子宫脱垂女性的多中心随机非劣效性试验
BMJ. 2015 Jul 23;351:h3717. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3717.
9
Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.经骶骨固定术或阴道子宫切除术联合子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术后盆腔器官脱垂复发的危险因素。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Aug;227(2):252.e1-252.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.017. Epub 2022 Apr 16.
10
High Uterosacral Ligaments Suspension for Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse Repair.高位子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术在子宫切除术后阴道穹窿脱垂修复中的应用。
Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Feb 13;60(2):320. doi: 10.3390/medicina60020320.

引用本文的文献

1
A preliminary clinical report of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in the treatment of moderate and severe pelvic organ prolapse.经阴道自然腔道内镜下骶棘韧带固定术治疗中重度盆腔器官脱垂的初步临床报告
Front Surg. 2022 Jul 29;9:931691. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.931691. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

1
Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark.2010 年至 2016 年丹麦顶端脱垂手术趋势。
Int Urogynecol J. 2020 Feb;31(2):321-327. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3852-7. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
2
Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: an activity-based costing analysis.曼彻斯特-福瑟吉尔手术与子宫骶骨韧带悬吊阴道子宫切除术:基于作业成本法的分析
Int Urogynecol J. 2018 Aug;29(8):1161-1171. doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-3575-9. Epub 2018 Feb 26.
3
Transvaginal native-tissue repair of vaginal vault prolapse.
阴道穹窿脱垂的经阴道自体组织修复术。
Minerva Ginecol. 2018 Aug;70(4):371-377. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4784.18.04191-6. Epub 2018 Jan 26.
4
The Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study.曼彻斯特-福瑟吉尔手术与子宫骶骨韧带悬吊式阴道子宫切除术的比较:一项匹配历史队列研究。
Int Urogynecol J. 2018 Mar;29(3):431-440. doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3519-9. Epub 2017 Dec 29.
5
Danish Urogynaecological Database.丹麦泌尿妇科数据库。
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Oct 25;8:709-712. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S99511. eCollection 2016.
6
The Danish Hysterectomy and Hysteroscopy Database.丹麦子宫切除术和宫腔镜检查数据库。
Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Oct 25;8:515-520. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S99465. eCollection 2016.
7
The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential.丹麦国家患者登记处:内容、数据质量及研究潜力综述
Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Nov 17;7:449-90. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S91125. eCollection 2015.
8
Use of vaginal hysterectomy in Denmark: rates, indications and patient characteristics.丹麦的阴道子宫切除术使用情况:比率、适应证和患者特征。
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 Sep;90(9):978-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01199.x. Epub 2011 Jun 27.
9
No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations.未经评估,不得进行手术创新:IDEAL 建议
Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1105-12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8.
10
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation.评估手术创新的挑战。
Lancet. 2009 Sep 26;374(9695):1097-104. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61086-2.