Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial
Open Access
- 17 April 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in International Urogynecology Journal
- Vol. 28 (10), 1469-1479
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis The objective was to evaluate the functional outcome after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus open sacrocolpopexy in women with vault prolapse. Methods A multicentre randomised controlled trial was carried out at four teaching and two university hospitals in the Netherlands in women with symptomatic vault prolapse requiring surgical treatment. Participants were randomised for laparoscopic or open sacrocolpopexy. Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life measured using the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI) questionnaire at 12 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome and perioperative data. We needed 74 participants to show a difference of 10 points on the prolapse domain of the UDI 12 months after surgery (power of 80%, α error 0.05). Results Between 2007 and 2012, a total of 74 women were randomised. Follow-up after 12 months showed no significant differences in domain scores of the UDI between the two groups. After 12 months, both groups reported a UDI score of 0.0 (IQR: 0–0) for the domain “genital prolapse”, which was the primary outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.93). The number of severe complications was 4 in the laparoscopic group versus 7 in the open abdominal group (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.50–2.27). There was less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay after laparoscopy; 2 (IQR 2–3) versus 4 (IQR 3–5) days, which was statistically different. There was no significant difference in anatomical outcome at 12 months. Conclusion Our trial provides evidence to support a laparoscopic approach when performing sacrocolpopexy, as there was less blood loss and hospital stay was shorter, whereas functional and anatomical outcome were not statistically different.Funding Information
- Maastricht University
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapseInternational Urogynecology Journal, 2012
- Reanalysis of a randomized trial of 3 techniques of anterior colporrhaphy using clinically relevant definitions of successAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2011
- Defining Success After Surgery for Pelvic Organ ProlapseObstetrics & Gynecology, 2009
- Hysterectomy Does Not Cause ConstipationDiseases of the Colon & Rectum, 2008
- Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive ReviewObstetrics & Gynecology, 2004
- Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2003
- A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital functionBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2003
- Measuring health‐related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: The urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisitedNeurourology and Urodynamics, 2003
- The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunctionAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1996
- Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse.1994