Association Between Enlarged Genital Hiatus and Composite Surgical Failure After Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.

IMPORTANCE: The impact of a persistently enlarged genital hiatus (GH) after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on prolapse outcomes is currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: This secondary analysis of the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized trial was conducted among participants who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. We hypothesized that women with a persistently enlarged GH size would have a higher proportion of prolapse recurrence. STUDY DESIGN: Women who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension as part of the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized trial (NCT01802281) were divided into 3 groups based on change in their preoperative to 4- to 6-week postoperative GH measurements: (1) persistently enlarged GH, 2) improved GH, or (3) stably normal GH. Baseline characteristics and 2-year surgical outcomes were compared across groups. A logistic regression model for composite surgical failure controlling for advanced anterior wall prolapse and GH group was fitted. RESULTS: This secondary analysis included 81 women. The proportion with composite surgical failure was significantly higher among those with a persistently enlarged GH (50%) compared with a stably normal GH (12%) with an unadjusted risk difference of 38% (95% confidence interval, 4%-68%). When adjusted for advanced prolapse in the anterior compartment at baseline, the odds of composite surgical failure was 6 times higher in the persistently enlarged GH group compared with the stably normal group (95% confidence interval, 1.0-37.5; P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: A persistently enlarged GH after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse may be a risk factor for recurrent prolapse.

Long-term Urinary Outcomes After Transvaginal Uterovaginal Prolapse Repair With and Without Concomitant Midurethral Slings.

IMPORTANCE: Many health care providers place concomitant midurethral slings during pelvic organ prolapse repair, yet growing evidence supports staged midurethral sling placement. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare urinary function after transvaginal uterovaginal prolapse repair with and without midurethral sling. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial (hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension vs mesh hysteropexy). Our primary outcome was Urinary Distress Inventory score (UDI-6) through 5 years compared between women with and without a concomitant sling within prolapse repair arms. Sling effect was adjusted for select clinical variables and interaction terms (α = .05). RESULTS: The sling group included 90 women (43 hysteropexy, 47 hysterectomy), and the no-sling group included 93 women (48 hysteropexy, 45 hysterectomy). At baseline, the sling group reported more bothersome stress (66% vs 36%, P < 0.001) and urgency incontinence (69% vs 48%, P = 0.007). For hysteropexy, there were no significant long-term differences in UDI-6 scores or bothersome urine leakage between sling groups. For hysterectomy, women with sling had better UDI-6 scores across time points (adjusted mean difference, -5.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to -0.2); bothersome stress and urgency leakage were less common in the sling group (stress adjusted odds ratio, 0.1 [95% CI, 0.0-0.4]; urge adjusted odds ratio, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.2-1.0]). Treatment for stress incontinence over 5 years was similar in the sling (7.9%) versus no-sling (7.6%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Five-year urinary outcomes of concomitant midurethral sling may vary by type of transvaginal prolapse surgery, with possible benefit of midurethral sling at the time of vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension but not after mesh hysteropexy.