Literature DB >> 23832266

Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse.

Sissel H Oversand1, Anne Cathrine Staff, Anny E Spydslaug, Rune Svenningsen, Ellen Borstad.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There are large variations in reported frequency of recurrence and subsequent treatment after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. We hypothesized that native tissue repair entails high subjective satisfaction and good objective results, with low POP reoperation rates and few complications.
METHODS: The 1-year results of 699 women having had native tissue repair for POP at our urogynecological unit from 2002 to 2005 were evaluated using an internal quality control database. A short-form physician check list for patient subjective and objective outcomes has been routinely used for 1-year controls since 2002, and results are registered longitudinally in the database. Patients' medical records up to 2012 were reviewed for information on recurrent POP symptoms. A telephone interview was performed to assess POP recurrences potentially treated elsewhere. The cumulative incidence for reoperation was calculated comparing partial with complete (surgical treatment of all three compartments) native tissue repairs.
RESULTS: Subjective satisfaction was stated by 94 % of patients at the 1-year control, and 84 % had stage 0-I in any compartment using the POP Quantification (POP-Q) system. The 5-year reoperation rate was significantly lower in the complete vs. the partial (2.6 % vs. 8.9 %) repair group. Cumulative incidence of reoperation showed a slight but constant increase over the years.
CONCLUSIONS: POP surgery using native tissue repair entails low reoperation rates with excellent subjective and objective results and should be the first choice in treating primary POP, providing use of adequate surgical technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23832266     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2166-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  25 in total

1.  Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Amanda L Clark; Thomas Gregory; Virginia J Smith; Renee Edwards
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse within 10 years of primary surgery for prolapse.

Authors:  Philipp T Gotthart; Thomas Aigmueller; Peter F J Lang; George Ralph; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Karl Tamussino
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Fiona J Smith; C D'Arcy J Holman; Rachael E Moorin; Nicolas Tsokos
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 4.  Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.

Authors:  Christopher Maher; Benjamin Feiner; Kaven Baessler; Elisabeth J Adams; Suzanne Hagen; Cathryn Ma Glazener
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-04-14

5.  [Risk factors of pelvic organ prolapsed in women qualified to reconstructive surgery--the Polish multicenter study].

Authors:  Tomasz Rechberger; Paweł Miotła; Konrad Futyma; Aleksandra Bartuzi; Antoni Basta; Marcin Opławski; Klaudia Stangel-Wójcikiewicz; Włodzimierz Baranowski; Jacek Doniec; Artur Rogowski; Andrzej Starczewski; Jolanta Nawrocka-Rutkowska; Joanna Borowiak; Jerzy Sikora; Igor Bakon; Jacek Magnucki; Andrzej Witek; Agnieszka Drosdol; Agnieszka Solecka; Andrzej Malinowski; Wojciech Ordon; Artur Jakimiuk; Wojciech Borucki; Radosław Rodzoch
Journal:  Ginekol Pol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 1.232

Review 6.  Benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatment for urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tatyana Shamliyan; Jean F Wyman; Rema Ramakrishnan; François Sainfort; Robert L Kane
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Authors:  A L Olsen; V J Smith; J O Bergstrom; J C Colling; A L Clark
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Surgical strategies for women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence.

Authors:  Ellen Borstad; Michael Abdelnoor; Anne Cathrine Staff; Sigurd Kulseng-Hanssen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-11-26       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Is there a difference in patient and physician quality of life evaluation in pelvic organ prolapse?

Authors:  Sushma Srikrishna; Dudley Robinson; Linda Cardozo; Juan Gonzalez
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-10-16

Review 10.  Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: What is cure?

Authors:  Una Lee; Shlomo Raz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.092

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Pelvic organ prolapse: A primer for urologists.

Authors:  Michel Bureau; Kevin V Carlson
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Heterogeneity in post-intervention prolapse and urinary outcome reporting: a one-year review of the International Urogynecology Journal.

Authors:  Dobrochna Globerman; Magali Robert
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-05-06       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark.

Authors:  Karen Ruben Husby; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 5.  The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review.

Authors:  Cæcilie Krogsgaard Tolstrup; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 6.  Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion.

Authors:  Sharif Ismail; Jonathan Duckett; Diaa Rizk; Olanrewaju Sorinola; Dorothy Kammerer-Doak; Oscar Contreras-Ortiz; Hazem Al-Mandeel; Kamil Svabik; Mitesh Parekh; Christian Phillips
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  The Manchester repair: an instructional video.

Authors:  Caroline E Walsh; Lin L Ow; N Rajamaheswari; Peter L Dwyer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes.

Authors:  Sissel Hegdahl Oversand; Anne C Staff; Ellen Borstad; Rune Svenningsen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh.

Authors:  Eduardo Bataller; Cristina Ros; Sonia Anglès; Miriam Gallego; Montserrat Espuña-Pons; Francisco Carmona
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.