INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We sought to compare rates of recurrent cystocele following sacrocolpopexy with and without paravaginal repair (PVR). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared outcomes for patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy with (group A) and without (group B) concomitant PVR. Defining anterior failure as point Ba > or = -1 cm, we compared anatomic outcomes and reoperation rates for recurrence of cystocele. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy had anterior wall prolapse at or beyond the hymen before surgery (62 in group A and 108 in group B). Ten (16.1%) patients in group A and 29 (26.9%) in group B experienced anterior wall prolapse to or beyond -1 cm (p = 0.13, power 0.38). Among these groups, one (1.6%) and five (4.6%) underwent reoperation for cystocele recurrence (p=0.42, power <0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the trend toward improved clinical outcomes, we were unable to detect a statistically significant difference with inclusion of PVR with sacrocolpopexy.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We sought to compare rates of recurrent cystocele following sacrocolpopexy with and without paravaginal repair (PVR). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared outcomes for patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy with (group A) and without (group B) concomitant PVR. Defining anterior failure as point Ba > or = -1 cm, we compared anatomic outcomes and reoperation rates for recurrence of cystocele. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy had anterior wall prolapse at or beyond the hymen before surgery (62 in group A and 108 in group B). Ten (16.1%) patients in group A and 29 (26.9%) in group B experienced anterior wall prolapse to or beyond -1 cm (p = 0.13, power 0.38). Among these groups, one (1.6%) and five (4.6%) underwent reoperation for cystocele recurrence (p=0.42, power <0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the trend toward improved clinical outcomes, we were unable to detect a statistically significant difference with inclusion of PVR with sacrocolpopexy.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kristin Rooney; Kimberly Kenton; Elizabeth R Mueller; Mary Pat FitzGerald; Linda Brubaker Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: A M Weber; P Abrams; L Brubaker; G Cundiff; G Davis; R R Dmochowski; J Fischer; T Hull; I Nygaard; A C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2001
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
Authors: Kindra A Larson; Jiajia Luo; Kenneth E Guire; Luyun Chen; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Mèlanie N van IJsselmuiden; Manon H Kerkhof; René P Schellart; Marlies Y Bongers; Wilbert A Spaans; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 2.894