Central Sensitisation Syndrome: A Frequent Finding in Women with Pelvic Floor Symptoms Without Evident Urogenital Prolapse.

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.

The effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) is a technique to correct apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) by shortening the uterosacral ligaments with sutures. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review with meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of LUSLS as treatment for apical POP. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and Cochrane search using 'pelvic organ prolapse', 'laparoscopy' and 'uterosacral', including synonyms. SELECTION CRITERIA: All articles in English presenting outcome of an original series of women with LUSLS as treatment of apical POP. Case reports were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study enrollment was performed by two reviewers. Our primary outcome measures were objective and subjective effectiveness of the procedure. Secondary outcome measures regarded complications and recurrence. Bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. MAIN RESULTS: Of 138 hits, 13 studies were included with 933 LUSLS patients. The average follow-up was 22 months. All were nonrandomised cohort studies. The pooled anatomic success rate is 90% for all LUSLS procedures (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.3-95.5). LUSLS with hysterectomy resulted in an anatomic success rate of 96.6% (95% CI 87.5-100) and LUSLS with uterus preservation 83.4% (95% CI 67.7-94.6). The pooled subjective cure rate was 90.5% (95% CI 81.9-96.5). The rate of major complications was 1%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (with or without uterus preservation) seems to be an effective and safe treatment for women with apical POP, but long-term prospective trials and randomised controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings.

Long-term pelvic floor symptoms and urogenital prolapse after hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe the natural course of pelvic floor symptoms and pelvic floor anatomy for women long-term after hysterectomy. METHODS: Women who underwent hysterectomy between 1996-2004 carried out the PFDI-20 questionnaire and POP-Q examination. We collected data on the presence and type of pelvic floor symptoms and its relation to the degree of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) per compartment (≥ stage 2). RESULTS: We obtained data from 247 women on average sixteen years after hysterectomy, with no prolapse (n = 94), anterior prolapse (n = 76), posterior prolapse (n = 38), both anterior- and posterior prolapse (n = 20), and a prolapse involving the vaginal vault (n = 19). Of all 153 women with ≥ stage 2 prolapse, 80 (52%) experienced moderate and/or severe symptoms of the PFDI-20. Most frequently reported symptoms by women with POP were uncontrollable flatus, urinary frequency and urge incontinence. Bulging was associated with a prolapse beyond the hymen. 39% Of women without prolapse experienced bothersome pelvic floor symptoms as well. Most often these were stress incontinence, straining to pass stool and incomplete bowel emptying. Women with a history of hysterectomy for prolapse have more pelvic floor symptoms than women who underwent hysterectomy for other indications, regardless of the current presence of POP (57% versus 40%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: In a group of post-hysterectomy women who did not actively seek help, 47% experienced problematic pelvic floor symptoms, independent of the presence or absence of an anatomic POP. Creating more knowledge and awareness of the impact of hysterectomy on the pelvic floor can help women in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Dutch Trial Registry; Trial NL5967 (NTR6333, 2017-02-01) and approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Máxima Medical Center (NL60096.015.16, 2017-02-24).

Pelvic organ prolapse after laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with vaginal hysterectomy: the POP-UP study.

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.

Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey.

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.

Only complete tumour resection after neoadjuvant chemotherapy offers benefit over suboptimal debulking in advanced ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare surgical results and survival outcome of advanced ovarian cancer patients who were treated with primary versus interval debulking surgery. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective study stage III and IV ovarian cancer patients who received debulking surgery from 2006 to 2015 were included. Surgical results were described as complete, optimal or suboptimal debulking and chi-square test was used to assess significant differences. Overall survival was measured using Kaplan-Meier curves, the log-rank test and uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 146 patients included in the study, 55 patients were treated with primary debulking surgery (PDS) followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and 91 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by interval debulking surgery (IDS). Complete or optimal debulking (0-10mm of residual disease) was achieved in 76.4% (n=42) of the PDS group and in 79.1% (n=72) of the IDS group. Overall median survival was 38 months for PDS and 31 months for IDS, which was not significantly different (p=0.181). In the IDS group, a significant difference was found in OS between complete and optimal resection (p=0.013). Besides that, no difference in survival outcome was found in the IDS group between patients with optimal or suboptimal debulking (median survival were 20 and 19 months respectively). CONCLUSION: Complete debulking surgery is of utmost importance, both in case of PDS and IDS. Achieving optimal interval debulking of 1-10mm residual disease did not show any survival benefit over suboptimal interval debulking.