SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Experimental Biomedical Research / 2020 / Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1

Unexpected risk of gynecological malignant and premalignant disease in women undergoing hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse

Mustafa Ayhan EKİCİ
Ali Can ÖNAL
Pages
56–62
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Women without abnormal vaginal bleeding do not have high risk of premalignant or malignant pathological reporting after uterovaginal prolapse surgery, however it should not be neglected.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To investigate the incidence of unexpected malignant and premalignant gynecological pathological findings among women who underwent hysterectomy due to pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In this retrospective study, the medical reports of women who underwent hysterectomy for POP between 2007 and 2019 were investigated to reveal unexpected malignant and premalignant lesions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Women without abnormal vaginal bleeding do not have high risk of premalignant or malignant pathological reporting after uterovaginal prolapse surgery, however it should not be neglected.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2007 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Aim: To investigate the incidence of unexpected malignant and premalignant gynecological pathological findings among women who underwent hysterectomy due to pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: In this retrospective study, the medical reports of women who underwent hysterectomy for POP between 2007 and 2019 were investigated to reveal unexpected malignant and premalignant lesions. The possible relationship between pathological results and other variables was evaluated statistically. Results: The hysterectomy was performed by abdominal (160, 30.53%), laparoscopic (62%, 11.83%) and vaginal approaches (302, 57.63%) in 524 patients with POP indication. Thirty five patients (6.67%) had unexpected premalignant or malignant pathological findings found on hysterectomy specimens. Simple hyperplasia was found in 18 patients (3.44%), complex hyperplasia in two patients (0.38%); CIN-1 (LSIL) low grade cervical intraepithelial dysplasia in nine patients (1.7%), CIN-II, moderate dysplasia in two patients (0.38%); CIN-III, severe dysplasia in one patient (0.19%); vaginal carcinoma in two patients (0.38%) and endometrial carcinoma in one patient (0.19%). In the vaginal hysterectomy group, the incidence of unsuspected gynecological malignancy was founded at the rate of 0.57% (3/524) and the percentage of the group was significantly higher than laparotomic and laparoscopic hysterectomy groups. Statistically significant difference was not found between the groups with respect to unexpected uterine malignancy. Conclusion: Women without abnormal vaginal bleeding do not have high risk of premalignant or malignant pathological reporting after uterovaginal prolapse surgery, however it should not be neglected.

🔖

Cite This Article

EKİCİ, M. A., ÖNAL, A. C. (2020). Unexpected risk of gynecological malignant and premalignant disease in women undergoing hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Experimental Biomedical Research, Cilt: 3 - Sayı: 1, 56–62. https://ajindex.com/articles/157971

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Swift SE. The distribution of pelvik organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic healthcare. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183(2):277-85. [2]Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(1):CD003677. [3]Renganathan A, Edwards R, Duckett JR. Uterus conserving prolapse surgery–what is the chance of missing a malignancy? Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(7):819–21. [4]Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019; 366:l5149. [5]vanHanegem N, Prins MMC, Bongers MY, et al. The accuracy of endometrial sampling in women with postmenapozal bleeding: asystematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;197:147- 55. [6]Frick AC, Walters MD, Larkin KS, et al. Risk of unanticipated abnormal gynecologic pathology at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(5):507.e1–507.e5074. [7]Ramm O, Gleason JL, Segal S, et al. Utility of preoperative endometrial assessment in asymptomatic women undergoing hysterectomy for pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(7):913–17. [8]Wan OY, Cheung RY, Chan SS, et al. Risk of malignancy in women who underwent hysterectomy for uterine prolapse. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 53(2):190–96. [9]Andy UU, Nosti PA, Kane S, et al. Incidence of unanticipated uterine pathology at the time of minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(1):97–100. [10] Ackenbom MF, Giugale LE, Wang Y, et al. Incidence of occult uterine pathology in women undergoing hysterectomy with pelvic organ prolapse repair. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(5):332–35. [11] Grigoriadis T, Valla A, Zacharakis D, et al. Vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse: what is the incidence of concurrent gynecological malignancy? Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):421–25. [12] Mizrachi Y, Tannus S, Bar J, et al. Unexpected significant uterine pathological findings at vaginal hysterectomy despite unremarkable preoperative workup. Isr Med Assoc J. 2017;19(10):631 –34.