Search

Introduction and hypothesis: Women with central sensitisation syndrome (CSS) experience poorer subjective post-operative outcomes even after successful pelvic floor reconstruction. This study tests the hypothesis that women with pelvic floor symptoms (PFS) without relevant pelvic organ prolapse (POP), are more likely to have CSS. Methods: A questionnaire was sent to women who participated in the POP-UP study in 2017. The POP-UP study evaluated POP in 247 women 16 years after laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomy. POP-Q data and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) results were used and supplemented with CSS-specific questionnaires. A Central Sensitisation Inventory (CSI) score above 40 implicates CSS. Women were divided into groups based on POP beyond the hymen in relation to the PFDI-20 score. Outcomes of women with PFS and without POP (called 'group 1') were compared with the rest of the cohort (groups 2–4; women without PFS and/or with POP). Results: A total of 136 women were included in the analysis. A CSI score above 40 was present in 16 out of 42 women of group 1 (37%) versus 11 out of 93 women of groups 2–4 (12%), p < 0.0001. Passive coping was more prevalent in group 1 (p = 0.039), and more deviations in somatisation, depression, anxiety and distress were found in group 1 (p values of < 0.0001, 0.018, 0.003 and 0.002 respectively). Conclusions: This study suggests that CSS might be more prevalent in women with PFS without relevant POP. More awareness of CSS and valid individual counselling may overcome unnecessary surgery for POP and help in setting realistic expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) for vaginal vault prolapse (VVP). Methods: Long-term follow-up of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (SALTO trial). A total of 74 women were randomly assigned to LSC (n=37) or ASC (n=37). Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life, measured with validated questionnaires. Secondary outcomes included anatomical outcome, composite outcome of success, complications, and retreatment. Results: We analyzed 22 patients in the LSC group and 19 patients in the ASC group for long-term follow-up, with a median follow-up of 109 months (9.1 years). Disease-specific quality of life did not differ after long-term follow-up with median scores of 0.0 (LSC: IQR 0–17; ASC: IQR 0–0) on the "genital prolapse" domain of the Urogenital Distress Inventory in both groups (p = 0.175). Anatomical outcomes were the same for both groups on all points of the POP-Q. The composite outcome of success for the apical compartment is 78.6% (n = 11) in the LSC group and 84.6% (n = 11) in the ASC group (p = 0.686). Mesh exposures occurred in 2 patients (12.5%) in the LSC group and 1 patient (7.7%) in the ASC group. There were 5 surgical reinterventions in both groups (LSC: 22.7%; ASC: 26.3%, p = 0.729). Conclusions: At long-term follow-up no substantial differences in quality of life, anatomical results, complications, or reinterventions between LSC and ASC were observed. Therefore, the laparoscopic approach is preferable, considering the short-term advantages. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR6330, 18 January 2017, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5964 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective was to review the long-term prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) after laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) compared with vaginal hysterectomy (VH). Methods: An observational cohort study was conducted amongst women who underwent an LH or a VH for benign indications during the period 1996–2004: the POP-UP study. The prevalence of POP was inventoried by a questionnaire involving the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) and a pelvic floor examination (POP-Q). Women were divided into groups based on route and indication of hysterectomy: LH, VH-1 (for nonprolapse), and VH-2 (prolapse). Results: Four hundred and six of the 706 eligible patients (58%) returned the questionnaire and 247 underwent POP-Q examination. Sixty-eight patients (17%) received treatment for prolapse; 8% LH, 10% VH-1, and 29% VH-2 (Chi-squared test, p < 0.001). The prevalence of vaginal vault prolapse (apical surgery or ≥ stage 2 at POP-Q) was 4.4% for LH and 5.8% for VH-1 (p = 0.707); and 23% for VH-2 (VH-2 versus others, p < 0.0001). The prevalence of prolapse ≥ stage 2 in any compartment was 62% (n = 153) in total and in 42% of the LH group, 51% of the VH-1 group, and 84% of the VH-2 group (Chi-squared test, p < 0.001). A symptomatic POP (anatomical POP ≥ stage 2 with bulging) was present in 11% of the population. Conclusions: No difference was found in the prevalence of POP between LH and VH for nonprolapse indications. However, POP after VH for prolapse occurs more frequently than after hysterectomy for other indications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To estimate the incidence of recurrence of complaints and repeated interventions after hysteroscopic treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding in premenopausal women and to determine potential predictors for re-intervention.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study in two secondary care centers in the Netherlands. We included 313 premenopausal women who underwent hysteroscopy for complaints of abnormal uterine bleeding and who had intrauterine pathology visualized at ultrasound. The intrauterine structure was hysteroscopically removed. These women were compared with women who had a hysteroscopy for abnormal uterine bleeding, but in whom hysteroscopy showed no abnormalities. We used Chi-squared test for categorical variables and independent-samples T test for continuous variables. p Values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance.Results: In total, 262 women had intrauterine pathology removed at hysteroscopy; 136 (52%) women had recurrence of complaints, while 101 women (39%) underwent re-intervention. Heavy menstrual bleeding at baseline and multiparity were predictive factors for recurrence of abnormal uterine bleeding and re-intervention. In the 51 women with abnormal uterine bleeding in whom hysteroscopy showed no intrauterine abnormality, 29 women (60%) had recurrence of complaints and 12 (24%) a re-intervention.Conclusion: In premenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding, treatment of intrauterine pathology often does not reduce the complaints, thus questioning the effectiveness of hysteroscopic removal of these structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: A great variety of conservative and surgical procedures to correct vaginal vault prolapse have been reported. The aim of this study was to describe practice pattern variation—the difference in care that cannot be explained by the underlying medical condition—among Dutch gynecologists regarding treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. Methods: A clinical practice survey was conducted from March to April 2017. The questionnaire was developed to evaluate treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. All members of the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology were invited to participate in a web-based survey. Results: One hundred four Dutch gynecologists with special interest in urogynecology responded to the survey (response rate, 44%). As first-choice therapy for vaginal vault prolapse, 78% of the respondents chose pessary treatment, whereas sacrospinous fixation was the second most common therapy choice according to 64% of the respondents. Preferences on how to approach vaginal vault prolapse surgically are conflicting. Overall, the most performed surgery for vaginal vault prolapse is sacrospinous fixation, followed by laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy. Conclusions: Gynecologists in The Netherlands manage vaginal vault prolapse very differently. No standardized method could be determined for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands, and we observed practice pattern variations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective of this study was to compare the functional outcomes after pessary treatment and after prolapse surgery as primary treatments for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: This was a prospective cohort study performed in a Dutch teaching hospital in women with symptomatic POP of stage II or higher requiring treatment. Patients were treated according to their preference with a pessary or prolapse surgery. The primary endpoint was disease-specific quality of life at 12 months follow-up according to the prolapse domain of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and additional interventions. To show a difference of ten points in the primary outcome, we needed to randomize 80 women (power 80%, α 0.05, taking 10% attrition into account). Results: We included 113 women (74 in the pessary group, 39 in the surgery group). After 12 months, the median prolapse domain score was 0 (10th to 90th percentile 0-33) in the pessary group and 0 (10th to 90th percentile 0-0) in the surgery group ( p < 0.01). Differences in other domain scores were not statistically significant. In the pessary group, 28% (21/74) of the women had a surgical intervention versus 3% (1/39) reoperations in the surgery group ( p = 0.01). Conclusions: In women with POP of stage II or higher undergoing surgery, prolapse symptoms were less severe than in those who were treated with a pessary, but 72% of women who were treated with a pessary did not opt for surgery. Trial registration number: Dutch trial register NTR2856. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of LigaSure™ versus conventional bipolar techniques on operating time and blood loss during laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy in a randomized controlled trial.Methods: In three teaching hospitals, 100 women undergoing a laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy were randomized for LigaSure or conventional bipolar instruments. Primary outcome was operating time (from initial skin incision to removal of the specimen). Secondary outcome measures were total operating time (from initial skin incision to skin closure), time to dissect the ovarian and infundibulopelvic ligaments, intraoperative blood loss, and subjective judgment of the instrument used.Results: There were no differences in operating time and total operating time using LigaSure versus conventional bipolar instruments: 41.0 vs. 39.2 min (p = 0.78; 95 % CI = -10.9 to 14.5) and 54.6 vs. 58.6 min (p = 0.46; 95 % CI = -14.8 to 6.8), respectively. The mean blood loss using LigaSure versus conventional bipolar instruments was 38 vs. 33 mL (p = 0.73; 95 % CI = -22.7 to 32.2). Various subjective efficacy and instrument handling parameters of the two instruments varied among participating centers.Conclusion: There were no significant differences in operating time and blood loss with the use of LigaSure compared to conventional bipolar instruments during laparoscopic salpingo-oophorectomy, even after correction for potential confounders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]