Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament uterine suspension compared with vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for uterovaginal prolapse

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compares the outcomes of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament uterine suspension (LUSUS) to those of vaginal vault suspension with total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH) for the treatment of symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse. We compared the outcomes of 25 LUSUS to those of 25 TVH with vaginal vault suspension among age-matched controls. No significant complications occurred in either group. EBL and hospitalization duration were significantly less in LUSUS patients (72 cc vs. 227 cc, P < .0001 and 1.05 vs. 1.65 days, P = .002). Vault support, as measured by postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantitation system point D in the LUSUS group and point C in the TVH group, was better for the LUSUS group (D = −9 vs. C = −7.6, P = .002). No LUSUS group patient underwent reoperation for recurrent apical prolapse as compared to three TVH patients. LUSUS is an effective treatment for appropriately selected women with uterovaginal prolapse who desire uterine preservation

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilcox LS, Koonin LM, Pokras R, Strauss LT, Xia Z, Peterson HB (1994) Hysterectomy in the United States, 1988–1990. Obstet Gynecol 83:549–555

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Marana HR, Andrade JM, Marana RR, Matheus-de Sala M, Philbert PM, Rodrigues R (1999) Vaginal hysterectomy for correcting genital prolapse. J Reprod Med 44:529–534

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nesbitt REL (1989) Uterine preservation in the surgical management of genuine stress urinary incontinence associated with uterovaginal prolapse. Surg Gyenocol Obstet 168:143–147

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kjerluff KH, Langenberg PW, Greenaway L, Uman J, Harvey LA (2002) Urinary incontinence and hysterectomy in a large prospective cohort study in American women. J Urol 167:2088–2092

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Petros PE (2000) Influence of hysterectomy on pelvic-floor dysfunction. Lancet 356:1275

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Masters WH, Johnson V (1966) Human sexual response. Little, Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  7. Thakar R, Ayers S, Clarkson P, Stanton S, Manyonda I (2002) Outcomes after total versus subtotal abdominal hysterectomy. N Engl J Med 347:1318–1325

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Donald A (1921) A short history of the operation of colporrhaphy, with remarks on the technique. J Obstet Gynecol Br Emp 28:256–259

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, Delancey JO, Karsov P, et al. (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonney V (1934) The principles that should underlie all operations for prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol of Br. Empire 41:669–683

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maher CF, Carey MP, Murray CJ (2001) Laparoscopic suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 97:1010–1014

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Margossian H, Walters MD, Falcone T (1999) Laparoscopic management of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Rep Biol 85:57–62

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Aparna Diwan

  2. Division of Urogynecology, Women and Infants Hospital, Brown University, 695 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02905, USA

    Charles R. Rardin

  3. Tufts-New England Medical Center, 750 Washington Street, Boston, MA, 021111, USA

    William C. Strohsnitter

  4. Boston Urogynecology Associates, Mt. Auburn Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 725 Concord Avenue, Suite 3300, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Alexandra Weld & Peter Rosenblatt

  5. Division of Urogynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Neeraj Kohli

Authors
  1. Aparna Diwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles R. Rardin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William C. Strohsnitter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexandra Weld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Rosenblatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Neeraj Kohli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aparna Diwan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Diwan, A., Rardin, C.R., Strohsnitter, W.C. et al. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament uterine suspension compared with vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 17, 79–83 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1346-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1346-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation