Literature DB >> 15458906

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review.

Ingrid E Nygaard1, Rebecca McCreery, Linda Brubaker, AnnaMarie Connolly, Geoff Cundiff, Anne M Weber, Halina Zyczynski.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To summarize published data about abdominal sacrocolpopexy and to highlight areas about which data are lacking. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE using Ovid and PubMed, from January,1966 to January, 2004, using search terms "sacropexy," "sacrocolpopexy," "sacral colpopexy," "colpopexy," "sacropexy," "colposacropexy," "abdominal sacrocolpopexy" "pelvic organ prolapse and surgery," and "vaginal vault prolapse or surgery" and included articles with English-language abstracts. We examined reference lists of published articles to identify other articles not found on the electronic search. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We examined all studies identified in our search that provided any outcome data on sacrocolpopexy. Because of the substantial heterogeneity of outcome measures and follow-up intervals in case studies, we did not apply meta-analytic techniques to the data. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND
RESULTS: Follow-up duration for most studies ranged from 6 months to 3 years. The success rate, when defined as lack of apical prolapse postoperatively, ranged from 78-100% and when defined as no postoperative prolapse, from 58-100%. The median reoperation rates for pelvic organ prolapse and for stress urinary incontinence in the studies that reported these outcomes were 4.4% (range 0-18.2%) and 4.9% (range 1.2% to 30.9%), respectively. The overall rate of mesh erosion was 3.4% (70 of 2,178). Some reports found more mesh erosions when concomitant total hysterectomy was done, whereas other reports did not. There were no data to either support or refute the contentions that concomitant culdoplasty or paravaginal repair decreased the risk of failure. Most authors recommended burying the graft under the peritoneum to attempt to decrease the risk of bowel obstruction; despite this, the median rate (when reported) of small bowel obstruction requiring surgery was 1.1% (range 0.6% to 8.6%). Few studies rigorously assessed pelvic symptoms, bowel function, or sexual function.
CONCLUSION: Sacrocolpopexy is a reliable procedure that effectively and consistently resolves vaginal vault prolapse. Patients should be counseled about the low, but present risk, of reoperation for prolapse, stress incontinence, and complications. Prospective trials are needed to understand the effect of sacrocolpopexy on functional outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15458906     DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  225 in total

1.  Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: "UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse".

Authors:  Miles Murphy; Adam Holzberg; Heather van Raalte; Neeraj Kohli; Howard B Goldman; Vincent Lucente
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  Evaluation of current biologic meshes in pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Authors:  Ashley Cox; Sender Herschorn
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Surgical management of apical pelvic support defects: the impact of robotic technology.

Authors:  Ashley W Carroll; Elizabeth Lamb; Audra Jo Hill; Edward J Gill; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature.

Authors:  E J Stanford; A Cassidenti; M D Moen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies (ACCESS).

Authors:  E R Mueller; K Kenton; C Tarnay; L Brubaker; A Rosenman; B Smith; K Stroupe; C Bresee; A Pantuck; P Schulam; J T Anger
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-05-27       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Assessing the learning curve of robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Brian J Linder; Mallika Anand; Amy L Weaver; Joshua L Woelk; Christopher J Klingele; Emanuel C Trabuco; John A Occhino; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Mobility and stress analysis of different surgical simulations during a sacral colpopexy, using a finite element model of the pelvic system.

Authors:  Estelle Jeanditgautier; Olivier Mayeur; Mathias Brieu; Gery Lamblin; Chrystele Rubod; Michel Cosson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 8.  Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh.

Authors:  Natalie Gaines; Priyanka Gupta; Larry T Sirls
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

9.  5-year longitudinal followup after retropubic and transobturator mid urethral slings.

Authors:  Kimberly Kenton; Anne M Stoddard; Halina Zyczynski; Michael Albo; Leslie Rickey; Peggy Norton; Clifford Wai; Stephen R Kraus; Larry T Sirls; John W Kusek; Heather J Litman; Robert P Chang; Holly E Richter
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Two-year urinary outcomes of sacrocolpopexy with or without transobturator tape: results of a prolapse-reduction stress test-based approach.

Authors:  Myung Jae Jeon; Ji Young Kim; Yeo Jung Moon; Sang Wook Bai; Eun-Hee Yoo
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.