• 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

腹腔镜子宫骶骨固定术与阴道骶棘韧带固定术治疗子宫脱垂:长期结局比较。

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy as treatment for uterine descent: comparison of long-term outcomes.

机构信息

Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Henri Dunantstraat 1, 5223 GZ, s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands.

Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Grow School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, P Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Int Urogynecol J. 2023 Jan;34(1):211-223. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05185-7. Epub 2022 Apr 28.

DOI:10.1007/s00192-022-05185-7
PMID:35482083
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9834108/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a frequent occurring health issue, especially concerning elderly women. The objective of this study is to examine the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) for treatment of uterine prolapse.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent a LSH or SSHP. Validated questionnaires and an outpatient examination visit were used to investigate the effects of both surgical treatments. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of success for the apical compartment, defined as no recurrence of uterine prolapse (POP-Q measurement C ≤ 0), no subjective recurrence of POP, and/or not requiring therapy for recurrent prolapse. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative data, anatomical failure, prolapse beyond hymen, subjective outcomes, and disease-specific quality of life.

RESULTS

We included 105 patients, 53 in the LSH group and 52 in the SSHP group. The overall response rate of the questionnaires was 83% (n = 87) after a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years (54.2 months; 95% CI 44.8-64.2 months) in the LSH group and 2.5 years (30.1 months; 95% CI 29.3-31.5 months) in the SSHP group. There were no clinically relevant differences between the study groups in composite outcome of success (p = 0.073), anatomical failure of the apical compartment (p = 0.711), vaginal bulge symptoms for which patients consulted professionals (p = 0.126), and patient satisfaction (p = 0.741). The operative time was longer in the LSH group (117 min; interquartile range (IQR) 110-123) compared to the SSHP group (67 minutes; IQR 60-73) (p < 0.001). The duration of hospital stay was also longer in the LSH group (4 days) than in the SSHP group (3 days) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

LSH and SSHP seem to be equally effective after long-term follow-up in treating uterine prolapse in terms of objective and subjective recurrence.

摘要

介绍与假设

盆腔器官脱垂(POP)是一种常见的健康问题,尤其是老年女性。本研究的目的是探讨腹腔镜子宫骶骨固定术(LSH)和阴道骶棘韧带固定术(SSHP)治疗子宫脱垂的长期疗效。

方法

对接受 LSH 或 SSHP 的患者进行回顾性研究。使用有效问卷和门诊检查来评估两种手术治疗方法的效果。主要结局为顶壁复合结局成功,定义为子宫脱垂无复发(POP-Q 测量 C ≤ 0)、无主观 POP 复发和/或无需治疗复发脱垂。次要结局为围手术期数据、解剖学失败、处女膜外的脱垂、主观结局和疾病特异性生活质量。

结果

我们纳入了 105 例患者,LSH 组 53 例,SSHP 组 52 例。LSH 组平均随访时间为 4.5 年(54.2 个月;95%置信区间 44.8-64.2 个月),问卷总应答率为 83%(n = 87);SSHP 组平均随访时间为 2.5 年(30.1 个月;95%置信区间 29.3-31.5 个月),问卷总应答率为 70%(n = 36)。两组在复合结局成功(p = 0.073)、顶壁解剖学失败(p = 0.711)、阴道膨出症状就诊(p = 0.126)和患者满意度(p = 0.741)方面均无临床相关差异。LSH 组手术时间(117 分钟;四分位间距(IQR)110-123)明显长于 SSHP 组(67 分钟;IQR 60-73)(p < 0.001)。LSH 组的住院时间(4 天)也长于 SSHP 组(3 天)(p = 0.006)。

结论

长期随访后,LSH 和 SSHP 治疗子宫脱垂的效果相当,无论是在客观还是主观复发方面。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/00f2/9834108/84c8aa2d59ef/192_2022_5185_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/00f2/9834108/171319feae0f/192_2022_5185_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/00f2/9834108/84c8aa2d59ef/192_2022_5185_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/00f2/9834108/171319feae0f/192_2022_5185_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/00f2/9834108/84c8aa2d59ef/192_2022_5185_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy as treatment for uterine descent: comparison of long-term outcomes.腹腔镜子宫骶骨固定术与阴道骶棘韧带固定术治疗子宫脱垂:长期结局比较。
Int Urogynecol J. 2023 Jan;34(1):211-223. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05185-7. Epub 2022 Apr 28.
2
Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy-a multicentre randomised controlled trial (LAVA trial).经阴道子宫骶骨固定术治疗 2 度或 2 度以上子宫脱垂:腹腔镜骶骨子宫固定术与骶棘韧带固定术的多中心随机对照试验(LAVA 试验)
BJOG. 2020 Sep;127(10):1284-1293. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16242. Epub 2020 May 10.
3
Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (LAVA-trial, study protocol).子宫托治疗2期及以上子宫脱垂:一项比较腹腔镜骶骨子宫固定术与阴道骶棘韧带子宫固定术的多中心随机对照非劣效性试验(LAVA试验,研究方案)
BMC Womens Health. 2014 Sep 17;14:112. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-14-112.
4
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.
5
Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging to quantify pelvic organ mobility after treatment for uterine descent: differences between surgical procedures.动态磁共振成像定量评估子宫下降治疗后盆腔器官移动:手术方法之间的差异。
Int Urogynecol J. 2020 Oct;31(10):2119-2127. doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04278-5. Epub 2020 Apr 10.
6
Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse.腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术或骶骨子宫固定术与阴道骶棘韧带固定术治疗中盆腔脏器脱垂的中期疗效比较
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 May;137(2):164-169. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12097. Epub 2017 Feb 17.
7
Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women.指南第 413 号:女性 apical pelvic organ prolapse 的手术治疗。
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2021 Apr;43(4):511-523.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.001. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
8
The Outcomes of the Manchester Procedure Versus Sacrospinous Ligament Hysteropexy for Uterine Prolapse: A Study of the British Society of Urogynaecology Database.曼彻斯特手术与骶棘韧带悬吊带术治疗子宫脱垂的结局比较:英国泌尿妇科协会数据库研究。
Int Urogynecol J. 2024 Jul;35(7):1469-1475. doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05826-z. Epub 2024 Jun 7.
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
Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.腹腔镜子宫骶骨固定术与阴道子宫切除术和顶端悬吊术比较:一项随机对照试验的 7 年随访结果。
Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Jul;33(7):1957-1965. doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6. Epub 2021 Aug 23.

引用本文的文献

1
The Influence of Successful Apical Defect Repair in Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy on Quality of Sexual Life.腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术中成功修复根尖缺损对性生活质量的影响。
Int Urogynecol J. 2025 Aug 5. doi: 10.1007/s00192-025-06198-8.
2
Laparoscopic Hysteropexy: How, When and for Whom Is It an Alternative Option? A Narrative Review of the Literature.腹腔镜子宫固定术:如何、何时以及适用于何人作为替代选择?文献综述
J Clin Med. 2025 Feb 8;14(4):1080. doi: 10.3390/jcm14041080.
3
Erroneous and Incomplete Reporting of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.
盆腔器官脱垂定量系统的错误及不完整报告
Int Urogynecol J. 2025 Feb;36(2):243-252. doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05988-w. Epub 2024 Nov 20.
4
Surgical outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.骶棘韧带子宫悬吊术与子宫保留术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的手术效果:随机对照试验的系统评价
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Jul 24;11:1399247. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1399247. eCollection 2024.