Literature DB >> 19716533

Anatomic outcomes of vaginal mesh procedure (Prolift) compared with uterosacral ligament suspension and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a Fellows' Pelvic Research Network study.

Tatiana V D Sanses1, Azin Shahryarinejad, Stephanie Molden, Kay A Hoskey, Shameem Abbasy, Danielle Patterson, Emily K Saks, Emily E Weber LeBrun, Tondalaya L Gamble, Virginia G King, Aimee L Nguyen, Husam Abed, Stephen B Young.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare apical support anatomic outcomes following vaginal mesh procedure (VMP) (Prolift) to uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). STUDY
DESIGN: This multicenter, retrospective chart review compared apical anatomic success (stage 0 or 1 based on point C or D of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification), level of vaginal apex (point C or D) 3-6 months after prolapse repair at 10 US centers between 2004 and 2007.
RESULTS: VMP, USLS, and ASC were performed for 206, 231, and 305 subjects respectively. There was no difference in apical success after VMP (98.8%) compared with USLS (99.1%) or ASC (99.3%) (both P = 1.00) 3-6 months after surgery. The average elevation of the vaginal apex was lower after VMP (-6.9 cm) than USLS (-8.05 cm) and ASC (-8.5 cm) (both P < .001)
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing VMP have similar apical success compared with USLS and ASC despite lower vaginal apex 3-6 month after surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19716533     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.004

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


  8 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Transvaginal mesh for prolapse repair: what is all the controversy about?

Authors:  Farzeen Firoozi
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  The Fellows' Pelvic Research Network (FPRN) 5 years later: an update.

Authors:  Lior Lowenstein; Vivian Sung; Stephen Young; Joseph Schaffer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and sacral colpopexy: results and complications.

Authors:  Gilad A Filmar; Hilaire W Fisher; Enrique Aranda; Peter M Lotze
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh.

Authors:  Eduardo Bataller; Cristina Ros; Sonia Anglès; Miriam Gallego; Montserrat Espuña-Pons; Francisco Carmona
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 6.  Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: abdominal and vaginal approaches.

Authors:  Kristina Cvach; Peter Dwyer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-10-22       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Perioperative complications in abdominal sacrocolpopexy, sacrospinous ligament fixation and prolift procedures.

Authors:  Fuat Demirci; Oya Demirci; Zehra Nihal Dolgun; Birgül Karakoç; Elif Demirci; Aslı Somunkıran; Cem Iyibozkurt; Erhan Karaalp
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 2.021

8.  RCT of vaginal extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension (VEULS) with anterior mesh versus sacrocolpopexy: 4-year outcome.

Authors:  Lin Li Ow; Yik N Lim; Joseph Lee; Christine Murray; Elizabeth Thomas; Alison Leitch; Anna Rosamilia; Peter L Dwyer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-06-30       Impact factor: 2.894

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.