| Literature DB >> 24318563 |
Yuki Sekiguchi1, Manami Kinjo, Yoshiko Maeda, Yoshinobu Kubota.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In 2005, a new minimally invasive procedure, the tissue fixation system (TFS) was reported. Like TVT (tension-free vaginal tape), the TFS works by creating a foreign body collagenous tissue reaction that reinforces a weakened pelvic ligament. The objective was to assess the effectiveness and perioperative safety of TFS in a day surgery clinic for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24318563 PMCID: PMC4032464 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2281-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Urogynecol J ISSN: 0937-3462 Impact factor: 2.894
Fig. 1The tissue fixation system (TFS). The TFS consists of two anchors (An) joined by a polypropylene mesh tape (T) passing through a one-way trapdoor at each base, which allows tightening. The anchor is fitted on top of the TFS applicator (Ap). The anchor is released into the tissues by activating the TFS applicator button (B)
Fig. 2Repair principle using tensioned tapes: schematic diagram. Example: how the TFS repairs the uterosacral ligaments (USL). Blue solid line: tape prior to tightening; red broken lines: tape after tightening; black broken lines: replaced organ, ligaments, and connective tissues. CL lax cardinal ligament
Fig. 3TFS for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Cervical ring/cardinal ligament sling the anchors were put along the cardinal ligament beyond the lateral sulcus. TFS U-Sling The anchors were placed below the pubic ramus, extending onto the medial aspect of the obturator fossa, in the position of the ATFP insertion. USL TFS Sling The anchors were placed approximately 2 cm distal from the insertion of the uterosacral ligaments (USL) into the sacrum
Improvement in urinary-related QOL
| Number of P-QOL | Symptom | Average points ± SD (pre-operation) | Average points ± SD (post-operation after 1 year) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q3 | Pollakisuria (urinary frequency) | 3.34 ± 1.04 | 2.74 ± 0.79 | < 0.01 |
| Q4 | Urgency | 3.05 ± 0.99 | 2.66 ± 0.67 | < 0.05 |
| Q5 | Urge urinary incontinence | 2.89 ± 0.83 | 2.62 ± 0.67 | < 0.05 |
| Q6 | Stress urinary incontinence | 3.22 ± 0.97 | 2.82 ± 0.79 | < 0.05 |