Modified sacrospinous ligament fixation in treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
10.3760/cma.j.cn.115807-20210622-00186
- VernacularTitle:改良子宫骶棘韧带固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的临床疗效
- Author:
Jiaju LI
1
;
Wenhua YU
;
Jing ZHANG
;
Caizhi WANG
Author Information
1. 蚌埠医学院第一附属医院妇产科，蚌埠 233000
- Keywords:
Uterus preservation;
Pelvic organ prolapse;
Modified sacrospinous ligament fixation;
Vaginal hysterectomy
- From:
Chinese Journal of Endocrine Surgery
2022;16(3):344-347
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To study the clinical effect of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and traditional vaginal hysterectomy on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) .Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed on 68 patients with POP of degree II-IV admittedl from Jan. 2017 to Dec. 2019. Among them, 33 patients were treated with SSLF (observation group) and 35 patients were treated with vaginal total hysterectomy (control group). Intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative indwelling catheter and average length of hospital stay were compared between the two groups. The patients were followed up for 6 months, and the scores of pelvic floor dysfunction questionnaire-20 (PFDI-20) and sexual quality questionnaire -12 (PISQ-12) were used to evaluate the subjective satisfaction degree of postoperative recovery.Results:In the observation group, the intraoperative blood loss (173.94±52.14) ml, postoperative indurating catheter time (2.72±0.45) d and average length of hospital stay (7.09±0.63) d were observed. There were statistically significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (228.86±53.40) ml, postoperative induration time (4.54±0.61) d and mean hospital stay (9.22±0.81) d in the control group ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the operation time between the observation group (99.57±9.50) min and the control group (101.06±8.64) min, ( P>0.05). The improvement of PFDI-20 and PISQ-12 in both groups was significant before and after treatment. The PISQ-12 score of the observation group was higher than that of the control group 6 months after surgery, and the difference was statistically significant ( P <0. 05). There was no significant difference in PFDI-20 score between the two groups ( P>0.05). There was statistical significance in the positions of pop-Q indicators in the two surgical methods ( P < 0.05) . Conclusions:SSLF with uterus preservation and total vaginal hysterectomy are both effective in treatment of moderate and severe POP. However, SSLF with uterus preservation has less intraoperative blood loss, and the postoperative recovery is significantly better than that with total vaginal hysterectomy. In addition, it satisfies patients’ desire to preserve uterus, improves the postoperative sexual life quality, which is worthy of promotion.
