Literature DB >> 17618778

Anterior intravaginal slingplasty tunneller device for stress incontinence and posterior intravaginal slingplasty for apical vault prolapse: a 2-year prospective multicenter study.

Michael D Vardy1, Michael Brodman, Cedric K Olivera, Huan-Sue Zhou, Adam J Flisser, Richard S Bercik.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the outcome for (1) anterior intravaginal slingplasty in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence and (2) posterior intravaginal slingplasty for apical prolapse (> or = stage II). STUDY
DESIGN: This was a 2-year prospective multicenter study: patients, 430; anterior intravaginal slingplasty, 144; posterior intravaginal slingplasty, 164; both procedures, 122 (552 tapes total). At 6 and 12 months, the results of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, cough stress test, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitation were assessed. Statistical analyses used paired t-tests.
RESULTS: Of the women in the study, 95% (42 women) had a negative cough stress test result through 12 months (n = 44 women), and 96% (127 women) had a negative cough stress test result at 6 months (n = 132). At 6 months, apical support was optimal in 95.3% (143/150 women) and was satisfactory in 2.7% (4/150 women) and at 12 months, 98.1% (52/53 women), 1.9% (1/53 women). Seventeen of 430 patients (4.0%) had vaginal mesh extrusion. Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores significantly improved (P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: Anterior intravaginal slingplasty and posterior intravaginal slingplasty are safe and effective when performed with other procedures. For anterior intravaginal slingplasty, the rates of perforation and retention are low, but early extrusions are seen. Patients showed improvements in the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, regardless of extrusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17618778     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.056

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  7 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

Review 2.  Vaginal surgery for uterine descent; which options do we have? A review of the literature.

Authors:  Viviane Dietz; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; C Huub van der Vaart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-12-16

3.  Apical sling: an approach to posthysterectomy vault prolapse.

Authors:  Alexandriah N Alas; Ines Pereira; Neeraja Chandrasekaran; Hemikaa Devakumar; Luis Espaillat; Eric Hurtado; G Willy Davila
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Posterior intravaginal slingplasty: efficacy and complications in a continuous series of 118 cases.

Authors:  Stefano Cosma; Mario Preti; Marco Mitidieri; Paolo Petruzzelli; Federica Possavino; Guido Menato
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Alessandro Zucchi; Massimo Lazzeri; Massimo Porena; Luigi Mearini; Elisabetta Costantini
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Anatomical and functional outcomes of posterior intravaginal slingplasty for the treatment of vaginal vault or uterine prolapse: a prospective, multicenter study.

Authors:  Young-Suk Lee; Deok Hyun Han; Ji Youl Lee; Joon Chul Kim; Myung-Soo Choo; Kyu-Sung Lee
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2010-03-19

Review 7.  Apical prolapse.

Authors:  Matthew D Barber; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.