INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This prospective follow-up study evaluates long-term subjective and objective outcome of conventional anterior vaginal wall repair in an outpatient setting. METHODS: Eighty-two women were operated. At 5-year follow-up anatomical results were evaluated by clinical examination. Furthermore, the women filled in a validated symptom and quality of life questionnaire. RESULTS: Seventy (85%) women attended the follow-up visit. Eleven percent of these had been reoperated for anterior vaginal wall prolapse and was considered a separate group in the analysis. Thirty-four percent had no pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Twenty-nine percent had stage 1 POP whereas 24% had stage 2 and 2% stage 3 at follow-up. Seventy-eight percent of the women had no bulge symptoms, and 73%of the women considered their condition improved. CONCLUSIONS: At 5-year follow-up 78 % was relieved from their bulge symptoms by an operation using local anesthesia. Eleven percent of the women had been reoperated.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This prospective follow-up study evaluates long-term subjective and objective outcome of conventional anterior vaginal wall repair in an outpatient setting. METHODS: Eighty-two women were operated. At 5-year follow-up anatomical results were evaluated by clinical examination. Furthermore, the women filled in a validated symptom and quality of life questionnaire. RESULTS: Seventy (85%) women attended the follow-up visit. Eleven percent of these had been reoperated for anterior vaginal wall prolapse and was considered a separate group in the analysis. Thirty-four percent had no pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Twenty-nine percent had stage 1 POP whereas 24% had stage 2 and 2% stage 3 at follow-up. Seventy-eight percent of the women had no bulge symptoms, and 73%of the women considered their condition improved. CONCLUSIONS: At 5-year follow-up 78 % was relieved from their bulge symptoms by an operation using local anesthesia. Eleven percent of the women had been reoperated.
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: Kari Nieminen; Reijo Hiltunen; Teuvo Takala; Eila Heiskanen; Mauri Merikari; Kirsti Niemi; Pentti K Heinonen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.661