Literature DB >> 17867956

Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.

Kenneth C Hsiao1, Kalyan Latchamsetty, Fred E Govier, Paul Kozlowski, Kathleen C Kobashi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) offers a minimally invasive treatment for vaginal vault prolapse. We describe the surgical technique and offer insight into the learning curve. In addition, we performed a case series review comparing the laparoscopic procedure with its open surgical counterpart with respect to various demographic and perioperative parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Institutional Review Board-approved continence database at our institution was queried to identify all patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy between August 1999 and October 2004. The LSCP was performed in 25 patients, and open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASCP) was performed in 22 patients. Data were analyzed using Student's t-test and the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the demographic characteristics of the patients undergoing the two approaches. The mean estimated blood loss (P = 0.0002) and mean length of hospitalization (P < 0.0001) were significantly less for LSCP, whereas the operative time was significantly longer (219.9 minutes v 185.2 minutes; P = 0.045). The success rate for LSCP at 5.9 months was 100%; the ASCP success rate at 11.0 months was 95%.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy led to shorter hospitalization, better hemostasis, and less pain than the open procedure. Early follow-up suggests that LSCP is as effective as ASCP for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17867956     DOI: 10.1089/end.2006.0381

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  23 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 colpoperineopexy: abdominal versus abdominal-vaginal posterior graft attachment.

Authors:  Colleen D McDermott; Jean Park; Colin L Terry; Patrick J Woodman; Douglass S Hale
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-10-20       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for uterine and post-hysterectomy prolapse: anatomical results, quality of life and perioperative outcome-a prospective study with 101 cases.

Authors:  Dimitri Sarlos; Sonja Brandner; LaVonne Kots; Nicolle Gygax; Gabriel Schaer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-06-07

4.  Central compartment and apical defect repair using synthetic mesh.

Authors:  Karen Soules; J Christian Winters; Christopher J Chermansky
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention.

Authors:  Renaud de Tayrac; Loic Sentilhes
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Jeroen Heemskerk; Nicole D Bouvy; Cor G M I Baeten
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Robotic and laparoendoscopic single-site utero-sacral ligament suspension for apical vaginal prolapse: evaluation of our technique and perioperative outcomes.

Authors:  Hugo H Davila; Taryn Gallo; Lindsey Bruce; Christopher Landrey
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-09-08

8.  Long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a minimum of three years follow-up.

Authors:  Mark S Shimko; Eric C Umbreit; George K Chow; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-01-19

9.  Outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with anterior and posterior mesh.

Authors:  P Xiromeritis; M L Marotta; N Royer; I Kalogiannidis; P Degeest; F Devos
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 0.471

10.  Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: technique and learning curve.

Authors:  Mohamed N Akl; Jaime B Long; Dobie L Giles; Jeffrey L Cornella; Paul D Pettit; Anita H Chen; Paul M Magtibay
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.