ACMJ
Anatolian Current Medical Journal

Anatolian Current Medical Journal (ACMJ) is an unbiased, peer-reviewed, and open access international medical journal. The Journal publishes interesting clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine, interesting case reports, and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, letters, comments, and related knowledge.

eISSN: 2718-0115
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Submit Manuscript

Index
Original Article
Comparison of classical and anchorage methods in sacrospinous ligament fixation
Abstract
Aims: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition that affects the quality of life in women. As a natural consequence of the aging population, it is believed that POP will increase in the next 40 years. With the increase in life expectancy, there is an expected rise in reconstructive surgical procedures to correct pelvic floor disorders. POP can occur in three vaginal compartments: anterior, apical, and posterior. The apical compartment includes uterine prolapse, cervix, or vaginal cuff prolapse. Our primary objective was to compare the surgical outcomes of the method using the classic technique with pelvic floor anchorage (anchoring).
Methods: This retrospective cohort study consisted of women with POP-Q (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quarejment) grade 2 and above in the apical compartment. In the sample size calculation, G power analysis was performed with ?: 0.05 and 80% accuracy. Forty-eight women were included in the study, with 24 of them undergoing the classic method and the other 24 receiving sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) using a pelvic floor anchoring device. The results of both surgical methods were compared in terms of anatomical recurrence.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference observed between the postoperative measurements of the C points. However, the difference in the C level between preoperative and postoperative measurements for patients who underwent the classic SSLF operation was statistically significantly higher compared to those who underwent the Anchorage SSLF procedure.
Conclusion: When comparing the classic and anchoring systems for the SSLF procedure, no difference was observed in terms of recurrence. However, the classic method was found to be more successful in restoring apical prolapse.

Keywords : Apical prolapse, SSLF, pelvic organ prolapse

Download Article


1. Xue F, Michels KB. Diabetes metabolic syndrome and breast cancer: a review of the current evidence. <em>Am J Clin Nutr</em>. 2007;86(3):823-835.
2. Balkau B, Valensi P, Eschw&egrave;ge E, Slama G. A review of the metabolic syndrome. <em>Diabetes Metab</em>. 2007;33(6):405-413.
3. Russo A, Autelitano M, Bisanti L. Metabolic syndrome and cancer risk. <em>Eur J Cancer</em>. 2008;44(2):293-297.
4. Pasanisi P, Berrino F, De Petris M, Venturelli E, Mastroianni A, Panico S. Metabolic syndrome as a prognostic factor for breast cancer recurrences.<em> Int J Cancer</em>. 2006;119(1):236-238.
5. Falk LE, Liu J, Li YI, Lewis MJ, Demark-WW, Hurst DR. Globular adiponectin enhances invasion in human breast cancer cells. <em>Oncol Lett</em>. 2016;11(1):633-641.
6. Fisher FM, Kleiner S, Douris N, et al. FGF21 regulates PGC-1&alpha; and browning of white adipose tissues in adaptive thermogenesis. <em>Genes Dev</em>. 2012;26(3):271-281.
7. Luo Y, McKeehan WL, Stressed liver and muscle call on adipocytes with FGF21.<em>Front Endocrinol</em>. 2013;18(4):194.
8. Abdulrahman GO Jr, Rahman GA. Epidemiology of breast cancer in europe and Africa. <em>J Cancer Epidemiol</em>. 2012;27:915610. doi: 10.1155/2012/915610
9. Bjorge T, Lukanova A, Jonsson H, et al. Metabolic syndrome and breast cancer in the me-can (metabolic syndrome and cancer) project. <em>Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev</em>. 2010;19(7):1737-1745.
10. Lin ZL, Tian H, Lam KS, Lin S. Adiponectin mediates the metabolic effects of FGF21 on glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity in mice. <em>Cell Metab</em>. 2013;17(5):779-789.
11. Fukumoto S. Actions and mode of actions of FGF19 subfamily members. <em>Endocr J</em>. 2008;55(1):23-31.
12. Kharitonenkov A, Shiyanova TL, Koester A, et al. FGF-21 as a novel metabolic regulator. <em>J Clin Invest</em>. 2005;115(6):1627-1635.
13. Zhang X, Yeung DC, Karpisek M, et al. Serum FGF21 levels are increased in obesity and are independently associated with the metabolic syndrome in humans. <em>Diabetes</em>. 2008;57(5):1246-1253.
14. Huang X,Yu C, Jin C, et al. Forced expression of hepatocyte-specific fibroblast growth factor 21 delays initiation of chemically induced hepatocarcinogenesis. <em>Mol Carcinog</em>. 2006;45(12):934-942.
15. Ping Q, Yan R, Cheng X, et al. Cancer-associated fibroblasts: overview, progress, challenges, and directions. <em>Cancer Gene Ther</em>. 2021;28(9):984-999. Epub Erratum in: <em>Cancer Gene Ther</em>. 2021;28(9):1074.
16. Ewendt F, Feger M, F&ouml;ller M. Role of fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23) and &alpha;klotho in cancer.<em> Front Cell Dev Biol</em>. 2021;14(8): 601006.
1. <ol class="fa-ul" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-left: 2.5em; padding-left: 0px; color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: Poppins; font-size: 14px;"> <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Pang H., Zhang L, Han S, et al. A nationwide population-based survey on the prevalence and risk factors of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in adult women in China-a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system-based study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021; 128(8):1313-1323. <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Peinado Molina RA, Hern&aacute;ndez Mart&iacute;nez A, Mart&iacute;nez V&aacute;zquez S, Rodr&iacute;guez Almagro J, Mart&iacute;nez Galiano JM. Pelvic floor dysfunction: prevalence and associated factors. BMC Public Health. 2023;14;23(1):2005. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16901-3 <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Larouche M, Belzile E, Geoffrion R. Surgical management of symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(6):1061-1073. <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Şahin F, &Ouml;zdemir S, Doğan O. Should sacrouterine plication be added to lateral suspension surgery? a prospective study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2024;50(6):1042-1050. <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> De Gracia S, Fatton B, Cosson M, et al. Serious complications and recurrence following sacrospinous ligament fixation for the correction of apical prolapse. J Clin Med. 2023;12(2):468. <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Holt E. US FDA rules manufacturers to stop selling mesh devices. Lancet. 2019;27:393. <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Husby KR, Larsen MD, Lose G, Klarskov N. Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(11):1887-1893. <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Coolen AWM, Bui BN, Dietz V, et al. The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(12):1767-1783. <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Wu CJ, Chang WC, Huang KJ, Hsieh YC, Wei LH, Sheu BC. Long-term follow-up of 453 patients with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent transvaginal sacrospinous colpopexy with Veronikis ligature carrier. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):4997. <li style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Campbell J, Pedroletti C, Ekhed L, N&uuml;ssler E, Strandell A. Patient-reported outcomes after sacrospinous fixation of vault prolapse with a suturing device: a retrospective national cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):821-829. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Mowat A, Wong V, Goh J, Krause H, Pelecanos A, Higgs P. A descriptive study on the efficacy and complications of the capio (Boston Scientific) suturing device for sacrospinous ligament fixation. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(1):119-124 <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Chen Y, Peng L, Zhang J, Shen H, Luo D. Sacrospinous ligament fixation vs uterosacral ligaments suspension for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology. 2022; 166(8):133-139. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Salman S, Babaoglu B, Kumbasar S, et al.Comparison of unilateral and bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation using minimally invasive anchorage. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2019;79(9):976-982. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Şahin F, Adan R, Bademler N, Demirel EA, Toplu Mİ, Mihmanlı V. Genital hiatus measurements predict cuff prolapse risk in prolapse surgery. J Surg Med. 2023;7(6):364-368. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Huang LX, Guo M, Sha LX, Chen C, Lin XH, Dong XX. clinical effect of uterosacral and cardinal ligament fixation versus sacrospinous ligament fixation of vaginal vault prolapse: a retrospective analysis. Int J Clin Pract. 2023;3:1489928. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Allahdin S, Herd D, Reid BA. Twenty-five sacrospinous ligament fixation procedures in a district general hospital: our experience. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;25(4):361-363. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Zhang W, Cheon WC, Zhang L, Wang X, Wei Y, Lyu C. Comparison of the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation and sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(1):3-13. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Senturk MB, Doğan O. Sacrospinous ligament fixation under local anesthesia in elderly patients at high risk of general anesthesia. J Invest Surg. 2020;33(1):1-7. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Ren C, Song XC, Zhu L,et al. Prospective cohort study on the outcomes of sacrospinous ligament fixation using conventional instruments in treating stage pelvic organ prolapse. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2017;52(6):369-373. <li class="reference-item" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; font-size: 1rem; margin-bottom: 0.5rem;"> Greisen S, Axelsen SM, Bek KM, Guldberg R, Glavind-Kristensen M. Fast track sacrospinous ligament fixation: subjective and objective outcomes at 6 months. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):154.
Article available in :
Volume 6, Issue 4, 2024
Page : 278-281
https://doi.org/10.38053/acmj.1492288
Article Information
Received : 29 May 2024
Accepted : 26 Haz 2024
Published : 29 Tem 2024
Corresponding Author :

Ramazan Adan: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşçıoğlu City Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey

[email protected]
Citation : Adan R, Şahin F. Comparison of classical and anchorage methods in sacrospinous ligament fixation. Anatolian Curr Med J. 2024;6(4):278-281.

Read: 147
Cited: 0
Download : 16
_Footer