| Literature DB >> 25961042 |
Ralf Joukhadar1, Gabriele Meyberg-Solomayer1, Amr Hamza1, Julia Radosa1, Werner Bader2, Dimitri Barski3, Fakher Ismaeel4, Guenther Schneider5, Erich Solomayer1, Sascha Baum1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sacropexy is a generally applied treatment of prolapse, yet there are known possible complications of it. An essential need exists for better alloplastic materials.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25961042 PMCID: PMC4417564 DOI: 10.1155/2015/860784
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4Pre-operative/baseline characteristics.
| Age (yrs., mean) | 62 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2, mean) | 25.7 |
| Parity ( | |
| 1 | 2/10 |
| 2 | 2/10 |
| ≥3 | 6/10 |
| Mode of delivery ( | |
| Spontaneous | 10/10 |
| C. section/Forceps | 0/10 |
| Other obstetric risk factors ( | |
| Birth weight > 4,000 gr. | 0/10 |
| Birth weight > 4,500 gr. | 2/10 |
| Perineal tear grades III or IV | 1/10 |
| Menopausal status ( | |
| Premenopausal | 2/10 |
| Postmenopausal | 8/10 |
| Hormone replacement therapy ( | 3/8 |
| History of prolapse surgery ( | |
| Anterior compartment | 3/10∗ |
| Middle compartment | 0/10 |
| Posterior compartment | 1/10∗∗ |
| History of hysterectomy ( | |
| Vaginal | 3/10 |
| Abdominal | 0 |
| Laparoscopic | 0 |
∗One of these three patients has had an anterior colporrhaphy twice in her past medical history.
∗∗This patient has had a posterior colporrhaphy twice in her past medical history.
Pre- and postoperative quantification of the prolapse.
| POP-Q measurements (cm) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aa | Ba | C | D | Ap | Bp | |
| Preoperative | ||||||
| Mean | 1.2 | 2.1 | −0.2 | −1.5 | −2.1 | −2.1 |
| Median | 1.0 | 1.5 | −0.5 | −2.0 | −2.5 | −2.5 |
| Range | 0 to +3 | 0 to +5 | −4 to +3 | −4 to +1 | −3 to +1 | −3 to +1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Postoperative | ||||||
| Mean | −1.5 | −1.1 | −6.3 | −8.0 | −2.7 | −2.7 |
| Median | −1.0 | −1.0 | −6.0 | −8.0 | −3.0 | −3.0 |
| Range | −3 to 0 | −3 to 0 | −7 to −5 | −7 to −9 | −3 to −1 | −3 to −1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Diff. postoperative to preoperative | ||||||
| Mean | 2.7 | 3.2 | 6.1 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| Median | 2 | 2.5 | 5.5 | 6 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Range | 1 to 4 | 1 to 6 | 3 to 10 | 4 to 10 | 0 to 3 | 0–3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 patients had a hysterectomy in their past medical history, so that measurement D is not applicable.
Pre- and postoperative quantification of the prolapse in respect of each compartment.
| POP-Q measurement (cm) and POP-Q stage according to each compartment | Ant. compartment | Mid. compartment | Post. compartment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative | |||
| Mean | Aa: +1.2/Ba: +2.1 | C: −0.2/D: −1.5 | Ap: −2.1/Bp: −2.1 |
| Mean | Stage III | Stage II | Stage I |
| Median | Stage III | Stage II | Stage I |
|
|
|
|
|
| Postoperative | |||
| Mean | Aa: −1.5/Ba: −1.1 | C: −6.3/D: −8.0 | Ap: −2.7/Bp: −2.7 |
| Mean | Stage I | Stage 0 | Stage 0 |
| Median | Stage I | Stage 0 | Stage 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Pre- and postoperative quantification of the urinary incontinence.
| Incontinence | OAB-dry | OAB-wet | SUI | SUI grade | Frequency of mictur. | Nocturia | Pads used | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||||
| Preoperative | 9/10 (90%) | 1/10 (10%) | 6/10 (60%) | 3/10 (30%) | 3/10 (30%) | 13.3 | 2.3 | 2 |
|
| 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Postoperative | 2/10∗∗ (10%) | 0/10 (0%) | 2/10 (20%) | 0/10 (0%) | 2/10 (20%) | 8.6 | 1.2 | 0.4 |
|
| 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 7 | |
* n./d.: number per day.
∗∗One other patient had no evidence of OAB in the urodynamic or micturition diary and still reported urgency.
Intra- and perioperative data.
| Concomitant surgery ( | |
| LASH (laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy) | 7/10 |
| Salpingectomy | 2/10 |
| Salpingooophorectomy | 5/10 |
| Ovarian cystectomy | 1/10 |
| Adhesiolysis of omentum or bowel | 5/10 |
| Anterior colporrhaphy | 1/10 |
| Posterior colporrhaphy | 1/10 |
| Haemoglobin (mean, g/dL) | |
| Preoperative | 13.9 |
| Postoperative day | 12.0 |
| Postoperative before discharge | 12.4 |
| Need for analgesics postoperatively ( | |
| Piritramid 0–6 h. | 9/10 |
| Piritramid or other short acting opioids 6–48 h.∗ | 1/10 |
| NSAID in medium dose 6–48 h. | 7/10 |
| NSAID in low dose 6–48 h. | 3/10 |
| NSAID regularly in a low dose 3–5 d. | 2/10 |
| NSAID on demand in a low dose 3–5 d. | 6/10 |
| NSAID on demand in a low dose beyond 6 d.∗∗ | 1/10 |
| Hospital stay (days) | |
| Mean | 5.9 |
| Range | 3 to 11 |
∗Given in the intermediate care unit (ICU).
∗∗This patient was discharged and took NSAID on demand at home.
Figure 5Correction of prolapse in each compartment. The dots correlate to the mean measurements of Aa, Ba, C, D, Ap, and Bp. Red line: lines out the preoperative status (POP-Q measurements). Green line: lines out the postoperative status (POP-Q measurements) before discharge.
Follow-up examinations.
| Follow-up 1 | Follow-up 2 | Follow-up 3 | Follow-up 4 | Follow-up | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3–6 weeks | 2–4 months | 6-7 months | 11–14 months | (mean/range) | |
| Follow-up completed ( | 1/10 | 9/10 | 6/10 | 4/10 | 7.4 months/1 to 14 months |
Description and classification of postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system.
| Post-operative complications | Type of complication ( | Management | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clavien-Dindo grading sys. | |||
| Early complications days 01 to 30 | Intraperitoneal hematoma∗ | Relaparoscopy day 2 | Grade IIIb |
| 1/10 | 1/10 | ||
| Recurrent UTI∗ | Antibiotics | Grade I | |
| 1/10 | 1/10 | ||
| Paraesthesia in right thigh∗∗ | MRI/spontaneous resolving | Grade I | |
| 1/10 | 1/10 | ||
| De-novo SUI∗∗ | Urodynamics/TVT | Grade IIIa | |
| 1/10 | 1/10 | ||
| Persistent SUI | Urodynamics/TVT | Grade IIIa | |
| 1/10 | 1/10 | ||
| Mild sacral pain | Reassurance/NSAID | Grade I | |
| 2/10 | 2/10 | ||
|
| |||
| Midterm complications days 31 to 90 | None | ||
|
| |||
| Late complications >90 days | Lower abdominal pain (erosion of the peritoneum) | Relaparoscopy day 119 | Grade IIIb |
| 1/10 | 1/10 | ||
| Recurrence of a mild cystocele | Not bothersome, no treatment. | Grade I | |
| 1/10 | |||
| Intraperitoneal Hematoma∗ and adhesions. | Relaparoscopy | Grade IIIb | |
| 1/10 | 1/10 | ||
∗The same patient in 3 occasions: 2 early and 1 late complications.
∗∗The same patient in 2 occasions: 2 early complications.
Figure 6Coronal subvolume minimum intensity projection of a T2-weighted dataset, displaying the implant with a low signal intensity (arrows), comparable to the signal of muscle tissue.
Figure 7Same patient as in Figure 6, this time a T1-weighted dataset, again with a coronal subvolume minimum intensity projection. Using the T1-weighted images, the contrast between the implant and the surrounding tissue is even better. Due to the iron oxide particles, a signal loss in the area of the implant is obvious (arrows), which allows for exact identification of the implant.