Literature DB >> 17520408

Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse.

J Marcickiewicz1, M Kjöllesdal, M Ellström Engh, S Eklind, C Axén, M Brännström, J-H Stjerndahl.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy (VSC) and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) both correct vault prolapse. The present study compares the perioperative course and long-term results of VSC and LSC.
METHODS: This retrospective study of post-hysterectomy vault prolapse involved 111 patients operated with either VSC (n=51) or LSC (n=60). The median time for the postoperative follow-up visit was 33.6 (range: 13-60) months for the LSC group and 38.4 (range: 7-108) months for the VSC group. Prolapse grade as well as the patient's satisfaction was recorded at the follow-up visit.
RESULTS: Operation time was significantly shorter in the VSC group (median: 62 min) compared to the LSC group (median: 129 min). The rate of perioperative complications was low in both groups. There were 3 laparotomies in the LSC group, due to perioperative complications. The inpatients days were similar, with 3.7 days (1-18) and 4.0 days (2-21) in the VSC and the LSC group, respectively. Surgery for the recurrence of vault prolapse at any time before the follow-up visit did not occur in the VSC group, but occurred in 7 patients in the LSC group. At the follow-up visit, there was no recurrence of vault prolapse in either group. The subjective success rate was 82% in the VSC and 78% in the LSC group.
CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that VSC and LSC are two equally effective surgical procedures to correct vaginal vault prolapse, but the LSC technique requires a longer operating time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17520408     DOI: 10.1080/00016340701332811

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand        ISSN: 0001-6349            Impact factor:   3.636


  9 in total

Review 1.  Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  Xueli Jia; Cathryn Glazener; Graham Mowatt; David Jenkinson; Cynthia Fraser; Christine Bain; Jennifer Burr
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Ke Pan; Lili Cao; Nicholas A Ryan; Yanzhou Wang; Huicheng Xu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Jason P Gilleran; Matthew Johnson; Andrew Hundley
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2010-10

Review 4.  Management of recurrent vault prolapse.

Authors:  V V Toh; V Bogne; A Bako
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-07-02       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Comparative analysis of overall cost and rate of healthcare utilization among apical prolapse procedures.

Authors:  Lannah L Lua; Erika D Vicente; Prathamesh Pathak; Daniel Lybbert; Vani Dandolu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Patient-reported outcomes after sacrospinous fixation of vault prolapse with a suturing device: a retrospective national cohort study.

Authors:  Jennifer Campbell; Corinne Pedroletti; Linn Ekhed; Emil Nüssler; Annika Strandell
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-10-07       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 7.  Comparison of the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation and sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wenju Zhang; Willy Cecilia Cheon; Li Zhang; Xiaozhong Wang; Yuzhen Wei; Chaoxia Lyu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 1.932

8.  Gynaecologists' views on the management of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Omaema Al-Baghdadi; Christian Barnick; Garima Srivastava; Hassan M Elbiss
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2022 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.088

9.  Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy.

Authors:  Marine Lallemant; A T M Grob; M Puyraveau; M A G Perik; A H H Alhafidh; M Cosson; R Ramanah
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.996

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.