PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic sacral colpocervicopexy with laparoscopic pectopexy. Our aim was to show that the safety and effectiveness of the new technique is similar to the traditional technique. We expected differences regarding defecation disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to two treatment groups: 44 in the pectopexy and 41 in the sacropexy group. If necessary, the operative procedures were planned in a so-called multicompartment setting regarding the different pelvic floor disorders. All defects were managed at the same time. Eighty-one patients were examined 12 to 37 months after treatment (mean follow-up 20.67 months). RESULTS: The long-term follow-up (21.8 months for pectopexy and 19.5 months for sacropexy) showed a clear difference regarding de novo defecation disorders (0% in the pectopexy vs 19.5% in the sacropexy group). The incidence of de novo stress urinary incontinence was 4.8% (pectopexy) vs 4.9% (sacropexy). The incidence of rectoceles (9.5% vs 9.8%) was similar in both groups. No de novo lateral defect cystoceles were found after pectopexy, whereas 12.5% were found after sacropexy. The apical descensus relapse rates, 2.3% for pectopexy vs 9.8% for sacropexy, were not statistically significant. The occurrence of de novo anterior defect cystoceles and rectoceles revealed no significant differences. CONCLUSION:Laparoscopic pectopexy is a novel method of vaginal prolapse therapy that offers clear practical advantages compared with laparoscopic sacropexy. Because laparoscopic pectopexy does not reduce the pelvic space, it results in a zero percentage of defecation disorders.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic sacral colpocervicopexy with laparoscopic pectopexy. Our aim was to show that the safety and effectiveness of the new technique is similar to the traditional technique. We expected differences regarding defecation disorders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to two treatment groups: 44 in the pectopexy and 41 in the sacropexy group. If necessary, the operative procedures were planned in a so-called multicompartment setting regarding the different pelvic floor disorders. All defects were managed at the same time. Eighty-one patients were examined 12 to 37 months after treatment (mean follow-up 20.67 months). RESULTS: The long-term follow-up (21.8 months for pectopexy and 19.5 months for sacropexy) showed a clear difference regarding de novo defecation disorders (0% in the pectopexy vs 19.5% in the sacropexy group). The incidence of de novo stress urinary incontinence was 4.8% (pectopexy) vs 4.9% (sacropexy). The incidence of rectoceles (9.5% vs 9.8%) was similar in both groups. No de novo lateral defect cystoceles were found after pectopexy, whereas 12.5% were found after sacropexy. The apical descensus relapse rates, 2.3% for pectopexy vs 9.8% for sacropexy, were not statistically significant. The occurrence of de novo anterior defect cystoceles and rectoceles revealed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic pectopexy is a novel method of vaginal prolapse therapy that offers clear practical advantages compared with laparoscopic sacropexy. Because laparoscopic pectopexy does not reduce the pelvic space, it results in a zero percentage of defecation disorders.
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Michel Cosson; Malik Boukerrou; Sophie Lacaze; Eric Lambaudie; Jean Fasel; Henri Mesdagh; Pierre Lobry; Anne Ego Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Patrick J Culligan; Miles Murphy; Linda Blackwell; Grant Hammons; Carol Graham; Michael H Heit Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: A Sauerwald; M Niggl; J Puppe; A Prescher; M Scaal; G K Noé; S Schiermeier; M Warm; C Eichler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240