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

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.

Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review.

The traditional surgical treatment for uterovaginal prolapse has been vaginal hysterectomy. For many reasons, women may request uterine preservation at the time of prolapse surgery. The purpose of this paper is to review the medical literature pertaining to the role of uterine preservation during reconstructive surgery for uterovaginal prolapse. A MEDLINE search of literature in the English language (1966 to current) was carried out using the keywords 'hysterectomy', 'hysteropexy', 'uterine preservation', 'uterine suspension' and 'uterovaginal prolapse.' Fourteen articles primarily addressing the surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse with uterine preservation were included in this review. Papers primarily addressing other forms of pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence or obliterative procedures were excluded. Existing procedures and their clinical outcomes were reviewed. The current literature suggests that uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse may be an option in appropriately selected women who desire it; prospective, randomized trials are needed to corroborate this.

Use of loop electrosurgical excision procedure specimens to provide tissue fractions for immunologic analyses.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if dividing loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) specimens to provide tissue for research increases rates of LEEP specimen misdiagnosis and recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this chart review, 42 women with biopsy-confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2,3 had up to 20% of their LEEP specimens sectioned and used for immunologic analysis. The remainder of each specimen was assessed routinely. Follow-up cytologic analyses and cervical biopsies also were assessed. This cohort was compared with a control cohort of 80 patients with biopsy confirmed CIN 2,3 whose LEEP specimens were not divided. Statistical significance was defined as a p value of < .05. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to histologic assessment of LEEP specimens or follow-up outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Use of up to 20% of LEEP specimens for research purposes neither adversely affects histologic evaluation of LEEP specimens nor leads to poorer follow-up outcomes.

Cost of routine screening for carotid and lower extremity occlusive disease in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: The burden of clinically relevant noncoronary atherosclerotic occlusive disease in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is poorly defined. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of routine versus selective preoperative noninvasive examination of the carotid and lower extremity arterial beds has not been established in patients who undergo elective AAA repair. METHODS: Diagnostic vascular laboratory study results were reviewed in 206 patients who underwent evaluation before AAA repair from 1994 to 1998. The patients underwent routine preoperative carotid duplex scan examinations and lower extremity Doppler scan arterial studies with ankle-brachial index (ABI) determinations. The medical records were reviewed for the identification of clinical evidence consistent with cerebrovascular or lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. The costs of routine screening and selective screening were determined with Medicare reimbursement schedules. RESULTS: The prevalence rate of advanced (80% to 100%) carotid artery stenosis (CAS) was 3.4%, and 18% of the patients had CAS between 60% and 100%. Advanced peripheral vascular occlusive disease (PVOD; ABI, <0.3) was found in 3% of the patients, and 12% of the patients had an ABI of less than 0.6. Most patients with advanced CAS (71%) or advanced PVOD (83%) had clinical indications of their disease. The absence of clinical evidence of disease had a negative predictive value of 99% for both advanced CAS and PVOD. The cost of routine screening for all patients for advanced CAS was $5445 per case. Routine screening for severe PVOD costs were $3732 per case discovered. In contrast, the costs for selective screening for advanced CAS or PVOD in patients with appropriate history or symptoms were $1258 and $785 per case found, respectively. CONCLUSION: Routine noninvasive diagnostic testing for the identification of asymptomatic CAS and PVOD in patients with AAA may not be justified. Preoperative screening is more clearly indicated for patients with AAAs who have clinical evidence suggestive of CAS or PVOD.