Literature DB >> 21299511

Surgical outcomes following total Prolift: colpopexy versus hysteropexy.

Colleen D McDermott1, Colin L Terry, Patrick J Woodman, Douglass S Hale.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Total Prolift(®) is a pelvic floor repair system that is performed transvaginally and can be carried out with or without the uterus in situ. AIM: To compare surgical outcomes following total Prolift colpopexy (TPC) and total Prolift hysteropexy (TPH).
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of women that underwent TPC (n = 65) or TPH (n = 24). Outcomes were compared between groups using Student's t-test, ANCOVA and Fisher's exact tests (P ≤ 0.05).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between TPC and TPH for all peri-operative variables. Patients were followed 6-12 months after surgery. Post-operatively, TPC patients had significantly higher pelvic organ prolapse-quantification (POP-Q) point C measurements (P = 0.05); however, all other POP-Q measurements were similar, including POP-Q apical stage of prolapse, with 99% in the TPC group and 92% in the TPH group at stage I or less. Post-operative mesh erosion, prolapse symptoms, surgical satisfaction, sexual activity and dyspareunia rates did not significantly differ between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that TPC and TPH have similar surgical outcomes, except for vaginal vault measurements reflected by POP-Q point C.
© 2011 The Authors. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2011 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21299511     DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2010.01258.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol        ISSN: 0004-8666            Impact factor:   2.100


  8 in total

Review 1.  Management options for women with uterine prolapse interested in uterine preservation.

Authors:  Nathan Kow; Howard B Goldman; Beri Ridgeway
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 2.  Uterine-preserving POP surgery.

Authors:  Robert Gutman; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Role of concurrent vaginal hysterectomy in the outcomes of mesh-based vaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  James C Forde; Bilal Chughtai; Jennifer T Anger; Jialin Mao; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Medium-term comparison of uterus preservation versus hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse treatment with Prolift™ mesh.

Authors:  Li-Yi Huang; Li-Ching Chu; Hsin-Ju Chiang; Fei-Chi Chuang; Fu-Tsai Kung; Kuan-Hui Huang
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Difference of opinion - Are syntetic slings safe? Opinion: Yes.

Authors:  Caio Cesar Cintra; Carlos Eduardo Bonafé Oliveira
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 6.  Apical prolapse.

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

7.  Comparison of short-term outcomes following pelvic reconstruction with Perigee and Apogee systems: hysterectomy or not?

Authors:  Li-Ching Chu; Fei-Chi Chuang; Fu-Tsai Kung; Kuan-Hui Huang
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-08-06       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Mesh complications in female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery and their management: A systematic review.

Authors:  Hemendra N Shah; Gopal H Badlani
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2012-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.