Literature DB >> 19015798

A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences.

Jennifer L Klauschie1, Brent A Suozzi, Maureen M O'Brien, Andrew W McBride.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare anatomic and perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) and abdominal sacral colpopexy (ASC). The hypothesis is that the laparoscopic technique has similar anatomic outcomes as compared with the open technique. A retrospective comparative chart review was conducted consisting of 43 patients who underwent laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and 41 patients who underwent abdominal sacral colpopexy. Demographics were comparable between groups except mean follow-up time (LSC = 7.4 months, ASC = 10.6 months). Mean improvement at the apex was similar between the two groups. Hospital stay in hours was shorter for the LSC group (mean/median = 35.4/30.9) than the ASC group (mean/median = 63.3/54.1, p < 0.001). Mean operative time was similar (LSC = 183, ASC = 168 min, p = NS) and complication rates were comparable between the groups. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy have comparable anatomical outcomes and operative times. Laparoscopy affords a shorter hospital stay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19015798     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-008-0768-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct


  11 in total

1.  Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy.

Authors:  A G Visco; A C Weidner; M D Barber; E R Myers; G W Cundiff; R C Bump; W A Addison
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study.

Authors:  Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters; Raymond R Rackley; Seham Melek; Cathy Hugney
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 3.  Laparoscopic colposuspension: a systematic review.

Authors:  Birgit Moehrer; Marcus Carey; Don Wilson
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 6.531

4.  The role of intraoperative cystoscopy in prolapse and incontinence surgery.

Authors:  C F Jabs; H P Drutz
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  C H Nezhat; F Nezhat; C Nezhat
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Authors:  A L Olsen; V J Smith; J O Bergstrom; J C Colling; A L Clark
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Pelvic organ prolapse in older women: prevalence and risk factors.

Authors:  Ingrid Nygaard; Catherine Bradley; Debra Brandt
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 8.  Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh.

Authors:  Patrick J Culligan; Miles Murphy; Linda Blackwell; Grant Hammons; Carol Graham; Michael H Heit
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 8.661

10.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, hysterectomy, and burch colposuspension: feasibility and short-term complications of 77 procedures.

Authors:  M Cosson; R Rajabally; E Bogaert; D Querleu; G Crépin
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2002 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  19 in total

1.  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 2.  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

3.  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

4.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic mesh sacrocolpopexy.

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

5.  Robotic versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical prolapse: a case-control study.

Authors:  G Cucinella; G Calagna; G Romano; G Di Buono; G Gugliotta; S Saitta; G Adile; M Manzone; G Accardi; A Perino; A Agrusa
Journal:  G Chir       Date:  2016 May-Jun

Review 6.  Robotic sacrocolpopexy: how does it compare with other prolapse repair techniques?

Authors:  Brian J Linder; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Midterm results of robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Carolin Eva Hach; Joschka Krude; Andre Reitz; Michael Reiter; Axel Haferkamp; Stephan Buse
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Commentary on: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Alexandra Mowat
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Introduction of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy to a fellowship training program.

Authors:  Kelly Kantartzis; Gary Sutkin; Dan Winger; Li Wang; Jonathan Shepherd
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-04-03       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 10.  [Reconstructive pelvic surgery. Current status and future perspectives].

Authors:  J N Nyarangi-Dix; N Djakovic; M Kurosch; A Haferkamp; M Hohenfellner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.