Literature DB >> 21306698

Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial.

Christopher F Maher1, Benjamin Feiner, Eva M DeCuyper, Cathy J Nichlos, Kacey V Hickey, Peter O'Rourke.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse. STUDY
DESIGN: Women with symptomatic stage ≥2 vault prolapse were randomly allocated the laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (53) or total vaginal mesh (55). Primary outcome measures were objective success rates at pelvic organ prolapse quantification sites individually and collectively. Secondary outcome measures included perioperative outcomes, patient satisfaction, quality of life outcomes, complications, and reoperations.
RESULTS: The laparoscopic sacral colpopexy group had a longer operating time, reduced inpatient days, and quicker return to activities of daily living as compared with the total vaginal mesh group. At the 2-year review, the total objective success rate at all vaginal sites was 41 of 53 (77%) for laparoscopic sacral colpopexy as compared with 23 of 55 (43%) in total vaginal mesh (P < .001). Reoperation rate was significantly higher after the vaginal mesh surgery 12 of 55 (22%) as compared with laparoscopic sacral colpopexy 3 of 53 (5%) (P = .006).
CONCLUSION: At 2 years, the laparoscopic sacral colpopexy had a higher satisfaction rate and objective success rate than the total vaginal mesh with lower perioperative morbidity and reoperation rate. Crown
Copyright © 2011. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21306698     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016

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


  65 in total

1.  Medium-term clinical outcomes following surgical repair for vaginal prolapse with tension-free mesh and vaginal support device.

Authors:  T Sayer; J Lim; J M Gauld; P Hinoul; P Jones; N Franco; D Van Drie; M Slack
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Surgery: laparoscopic promontofixation is safe and effective for POP.

Authors:  Tiffany Jackson; Arnold P Advincula
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: "UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse".

Authors:  Miles Murphy; Adam Holzberg; Heather van Raalte; Neeraj Kohli; Howard B Goldman; Vincent Lucente
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Surgical management of apical pelvic support defects: the impact of robotic technology.

Authors:  Ashley W Carroll; Elizabeth Lamb; Audra Jo Hill; Edward J Gill; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-12       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  A pilot study comparing anatomic failure after sacrocolpopexy with absorbable or permanent sutures for vaginal mesh attachment.

Authors:  Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Quinn Lippmann; Emily S Lukacz; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2014

6.  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

7.  Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology.

Authors:  Adnan Orhan; Kemal Ozerkan; Hakan Vuruskan; Gokhan Ocakoglu; Isil Kasapoglu; Bahadir Koşan; Gurkan Uncu
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016).

Authors:  K Baeßler; T Aigmüller; S Albrich; C Anthuber; D Finas; T Fink; C Fünfgeld; B Gabriel; U Henscher; F H Hetzer; M Hübner; B Junginger; K Jundt; S Kropshofer; A Kuhn; L Logé; G Nauman; U Peschers; T Pfiffer; O Schwandner; A Strauss; R Tunn; V Viereck
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.915

9.  Intraocular pressure change during laparoscopic sacral colpopexy in patients with normal tension glaucoma.

Authors:  Yoji Moriyama; Kosei Miwa; Tadanori Yamada; Ayako Sawaki; Yoshinori Nishino; Yasuhide Kitagawa
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Mesh complications and failure rates after transvaginal mesh repair compared with abdominal or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and to native tissue repair in treating apical prolapse.

Authors:  Vani Dandolu; Megumi Akiyama; Gayle Allenback; Prathamesh Pathak
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.