Subjective and Objective Outcomes of Robotic and Vaginal High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension

Vaneesha Vallabh-Patel, Cristina Saiz, Charbel Salamon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives This study was designed to assess the short-term outcomes in patients undergoing robotic or transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension for symptomatic apical prolapse at the time of hysterectomy. Methods This retrospective study used hospital and office electronic medical records to identify patients with symptomatic stage 2 to 4 prolapse, who had undergone either a robotic or transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension from July 2010 to January 2014. The database was searched using procedural codes for uterosacral ligament suspension. Each patient was contacted 1 year postoperatively to answer the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 via telephone, and this was compared to their initial preprocedural baseline questionnaire. Results Our primary outcome included the fulfillment of 3 criteria: (1) Prolapse leading edge of 0 or less and apex of total vaginal length or less; (2) the absence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms as reported on the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 question No. 3; and (3) no prolapse reoperations or pessary use during the study period. Ninety-two percent (24/26) in the robotic group and 85% (36/42) in the vaginal group (P = 0.46) successfully fulfilled these outcome criteria. There was no significant difference in the operative data between the 2 groups. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Conclusions These short-term outcomes are promising and show a high success rate for the uterosacral ligament suspension at the time of a hysterectomy regardless of whether it was performed vaginally or robotically.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)420-424
Number of pages5
JournalFemale Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery
Volume22
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Prolapse
Robotics
Ligaments
Suspensions
Pelvic Floor
Hysterectomy
Pessaries
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Equipment and Supplies
Electronic Health Records
Intraoperative Complications
Reoperation
Telephone
Retrospective Studies
Databases

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Urology

Cite this

@article{81213737f04642b9a3345dfd4361bf28,
title = "Subjective and Objective Outcomes of Robotic and Vaginal High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension",
abstract = "Objectives This study was designed to assess the short-term outcomes in patients undergoing robotic or transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension for symptomatic apical prolapse at the time of hysterectomy. Methods This retrospective study used hospital and office electronic medical records to identify patients with symptomatic stage 2 to 4 prolapse, who had undergone either a robotic or transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension from July 2010 to January 2014. The database was searched using procedural codes for uterosacral ligament suspension. Each patient was contacted 1 year postoperatively to answer the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 via telephone, and this was compared to their initial preprocedural baseline questionnaire. Results Our primary outcome included the fulfillment of 3 criteria: (1) Prolapse leading edge of 0 or less and apex of total vaginal length or less; (2) the absence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms as reported on the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 question No. 3; and (3) no prolapse reoperations or pessary use during the study period. Ninety-two percent (24/26) in the robotic group and 85{\%} (36/42) in the vaginal group (P = 0.46) successfully fulfilled these outcome criteria. There was no significant difference in the operative data between the 2 groups. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Conclusions These short-term outcomes are promising and show a high success rate for the uterosacral ligament suspension at the time of a hysterectomy regardless of whether it was performed vaginally or robotically.",
author = "Vaneesha Vallabh-Patel and Cristina Saiz and Charbel Salamon",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/SPV.0000000000000306",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "420--424",
journal = "Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery",
issn = "2151-8378",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

Subjective and Objective Outcomes of Robotic and Vaginal High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension. / Vallabh-Patel, Vaneesha; Saiz, Cristina; Salamon, Charbel.

In: Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Vol. 22, No. 6, 01.11.2016, p. 420-424.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Subjective and Objective Outcomes of Robotic and Vaginal High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension

AU - Vallabh-Patel, Vaneesha

AU - Saiz, Cristina

AU - Salamon, Charbel

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Objectives This study was designed to assess the short-term outcomes in patients undergoing robotic or transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension for symptomatic apical prolapse at the time of hysterectomy. Methods This retrospective study used hospital and office electronic medical records to identify patients with symptomatic stage 2 to 4 prolapse, who had undergone either a robotic or transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension from July 2010 to January 2014. The database was searched using procedural codes for uterosacral ligament suspension. Each patient was contacted 1 year postoperatively to answer the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 via telephone, and this was compared to their initial preprocedural baseline questionnaire. Results Our primary outcome included the fulfillment of 3 criteria: (1) Prolapse leading edge of 0 or less and apex of total vaginal length or less; (2) the absence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms as reported on the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 question No. 3; and (3) no prolapse reoperations or pessary use during the study period. Ninety-two percent (24/26) in the robotic group and 85% (36/42) in the vaginal group (P = 0.46) successfully fulfilled these outcome criteria. There was no significant difference in the operative data between the 2 groups. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Conclusions These short-term outcomes are promising and show a high success rate for the uterosacral ligament suspension at the time of a hysterectomy regardless of whether it was performed vaginally or robotically.

AB - Objectives This study was designed to assess the short-term outcomes in patients undergoing robotic or transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension for symptomatic apical prolapse at the time of hysterectomy. Methods This retrospective study used hospital and office electronic medical records to identify patients with symptomatic stage 2 to 4 prolapse, who had undergone either a robotic or transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension from July 2010 to January 2014. The database was searched using procedural codes for uterosacral ligament suspension. Each patient was contacted 1 year postoperatively to answer the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 via telephone, and this was compared to their initial preprocedural baseline questionnaire. Results Our primary outcome included the fulfillment of 3 criteria: (1) Prolapse leading edge of 0 or less and apex of total vaginal length or less; (2) the absence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms as reported on the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 question No. 3; and (3) no prolapse reoperations or pessary use during the study period. Ninety-two percent (24/26) in the robotic group and 85% (36/42) in the vaginal group (P = 0.46) successfully fulfilled these outcome criteria. There was no significant difference in the operative data between the 2 groups. There were no intraoperative complications in either group. Conclusions These short-term outcomes are promising and show a high success rate for the uterosacral ligament suspension at the time of a hysterectomy regardless of whether it was performed vaginally or robotically.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994890817&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994890817&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000306

DO - 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000306

M3 - Article

C2 - 27465813

AN - SCOPUS:84994890817

VL - 22

SP - 420

EP - 424

JO - Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

JF - Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery

SN - 2151-8378

IS - 6

ER -