RESUMO
Background: Pelvic floor disorders include urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, and pelvic floor prolapse, which are common complaints in women. Patients that suffer from uterine prolapse could benefit from surgical procedures that stabilize pelvic ligaments. Here, we aimed to compare the high uterosacral and sacrospinous ligament suspension surgeries. Materials and Methods: This clinical trial was performed in 2019-2021 on 64 women with uterine prolapse. Demographic data of the patients, including age, body mass index (BMI), past medical diseases, history of delivery, type of delivery, and duration of hospitalization, were collected. We assessed their urinary symptoms, prolapse degree, and sexual symptoms using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20) questionnaires before surgical interventions. Patients were divided into two groups undergoing high uterosacral and sacrospinous ligament suspension. They were followed up 6 and 12 months after surgeries. Results: Patients treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension had higher frequencies of surgical complications (P = 0.039), and the most common complication was low back pain (15.6%). The uterine prolapse andC point degree improved significantly in all cases after 6 and 12 months (P < 0.001). The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantifications System (POP-Q) scores improved significantly in both groups 6 and 12 months after surgery (P < 0.001), and patients who underwent sacrospinous ligament suspension had significantly lower pain intensity compared to the other group (P = 0.003). FSFI scores improved significantly in patients treated in both groups (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both high uterosacral and sacrospinous ligament suspension techniques significantly improved pain, uterine prolapse, and C point degree.
RESUMO
Background: Evaluation of ovarian tumors based on tumor markers could have high clinical importance. In this study, we aimed to assess the predictive value of HE4 and Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) compared to CA-125 in the Malignancy of ovarian epithelial masses. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed in 2020-2021 including 203 patients. Serum HE4 and CA-125 levels were checked before surgery. According to the pathology report (benign, borderline, or malignant epithelial mass), the predictive values of the three markers were evaluated. Results: About 146 cases were benign; 14 cases were borderline and 43 cases were malignant. Most patients (69.8%) in the malignant group were in stage 3. Significantly higher levels of all three markers (CA-125, HE4, and ROMA) were found in patients with malignant tumors compared to benign or borderline tumors (P < 0.001 for all). The sensitivity of CA-125 was the highest (90.7%) in pre- and post-menopausal patients but the specificity of HE4 and ROMA were higher than CA-125 (98.1% and 97.5%, respectively, versus 86.9% for CA-125). In post-menopausal patients, both sensitivities of HE4 and ROMA were 90.5% and the specificity and sensitivity of CA-125 were the highest (95.2% and 100%). In premenopausal patients, the sensitivity of ROMA (90.9%) and the specificity of HE4 (100%) were the highest. Conclusions: HE4 and ROMA are not necessary for postmenopausal patients in low-resource areas and a check of serum CA-125 will be enough. The higher-cost, ROMA, and HE4 checks are recommended in premenopausal people because they are more sensitive.
