Literature DB >> 23820321

Outlet constipation 1 year after robotic sacrocolpopexy with and without concomitant posterior repair.

Andrea Kuntaraf Crane1, Elizabeth Joanne Geller, Catherine Ann Matthews.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the rate of outlet constipation at 1 year after robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) with and without a concomitant distal posterior repair (PR). We sought, first, to determine the rate of persistent outlet constipation and second, to determine de novo outlet constipation.
METHODS: This was a cohort study of women who underwent RSCP alone versus RSCP + PR, at each surgeon's discretion, between November 2007 and February 2011 at an academic center. Specific questions in the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form correlating to outlet constipation and its colorectal-anal subscale scores were compared between and within groups. Rates of posterior compartment reoperation were assessed.
RESULTS: Of the 77 women who underwent RSCP, 21 (27%) had a concomitant distal PR. Overall, there was significant improvement in pelvic floor function and quality of life at 1 year after surgery (P = 0.01). Preoperatively, outlet constipation was present in 63.4% of those who underwent RSCP only and in 53.3% of those with concomitant PR. Postoperatively at 1 year, 56% of preoperative outlet constipation resolved and 44% persisted (P = 0.001), with no differences between groups (RSCP vs RSCP + PR). The rate of postoperative de novo outlet constipation was 13.6%. At 1 year after RSCP, 18.2% of patients had symptomatic posterior prolapse, with no difference between both groups (P = 0.746). Overall, 11.7% underwent a subsequent PR, none of whom underwent PR with the initial RSCP (P = 0.104).
CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year after RSCP, there was a high rate of persistent outlet constipation and a moderate rate of de novo outlet constipation. Concomitant PR did not significantly affect these bowel symptoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23820321     DOI: 10.1097/SMJ.0b013e31829ba4ab

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  South Med J        ISSN: 0038-4348            Impact factor:   0.954


  5 in total

1.  Variation in the practice of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a Dutch survey.

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

Review 2.  Robotic pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Kamran P Sajadi; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Does concurrent posterior repair for an asymptomatic rectocele reduce the risk of surgical failure in patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy?

Authors:  Olivia H Chang; Emily R W Davidson; Tonya N Thomas; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Cecile A Ferrando
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-03-07       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Junwei Li; Yizhen Sima; Keqin Hua; Yisong Chen; Changdong Hu; Xiaojuan Wang; Zhiying Lu
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Robot-assisted sacro(hystero)colpopexy with anterior and posterior mesh placement: impact on lower bowel tract function and clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up.

Authors:  Vincenzo Li Marzi; Simone Morselli; Fabrizio Di Maida; Stefania Musco; Luca Gemma; Francesco Bracco; Riccardo Tellini; Gianni Vittori; Andrea Mari; Riccardo Campi; Marco Carini; Sergio Serni; Andrea Minervini
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2022-04-21
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.