Literature DB >> 27250829

Laparoscopic wrap round mesh sacrohysteropexy for the management of apical prolapse.

Anthony Sarkis Kupelian1, Arvind Vashisht2, Nikola Sambandan2, Alfred Cutner2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Interest in uterine-conserving surgery for apical prolapse is growing. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is one of the conservative surgical options, although different surgical approaches have been described. We report medium-term outcome data using a bifurcated mesh implant, employing 'wrap round' uterine attachment.
METHODS: All procedures undertaken at our unit were reviewed. Study inclusion was contingent on the collection of baseline and 3-month anatomical and symptomatic outcome data. Medium-term follow-up data were collected by telephone review. Anatomical outcome was reported using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification scale. Symptom prevalence and treatment response were assessed using validated instruments including the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I), and the International Consultation on Incontinence Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI) and Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS) questionnaires. Patient satisfaction was reported using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
RESULTS: Data were available for 110 patients. Of 80 patients providing PGI-I data at 3 months, 75 (94 %) described their prolapse symptoms as 'much better' or 'very much better'. Anatomical success in the apical compartment was 98 %. ICIQ-UI and ICIQ-VS responses demonstrated significant improvement. Despite a concurrent vaginal repair in only 11 % of patients, satisfaction at a mean follow-up of 2.6 years was 96 %. Repeat surgery for vaginal wall prolapse was required in only 5 % of patients. No safety concerns or graft complications were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: This surgical variant of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is safe and highly effective. These data also cast doubt on the need for correction of modest vaginal wall prolapse at the time of surgery, and imply that apical prolapse may play a dominant role in the generation of symptoms.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopic surgery; Pelvic organ prolapse; Sacrohysteropexy; Uterus preservation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27250829     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-3054-0

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


  27 in total

1.  A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function.

Authors:  Jan-Paul W R Roovers; C Huub van der Vaart; Johanna G van der Bom; Jules H Schagen van Leeuwen; Piet C Scholten; A Peter M Heintz
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.531

2.  The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.

Authors:  R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Laparoscopic uterine sling suspension: a new technique of uterine suspension in women desiring surgical management of uterine prolapse with uterine conservation.

Authors:  A Cutner; R Kearney; A Vashisht
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2007-07-06       Impact factor: 6.531

4.  A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent.

Authors:  Susanne D Thys; Anne- Lotte Coolen; Ingrid R Martens; Herman P Oosterbaan; Jan- Paul W R Roovers; Ben- Willem Mol; Marlies Y Bongers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent.

Authors:  H P Dietz; K P Mann
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-02-07       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Development and psychometric evaluation of the ICIQ Vaginal Symptoms Questionnaire: the ICIQ-VS.

Authors:  N Price; S R Jackson; K Avery; S T Brookes; P Abrams
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 6.531

7.  Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence.

Authors:  Ilker Yalcin; Richard C Bump
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Kerry Avery; Jenny Donovan; Tim J Peters; Christine Shaw; Momokazu Gotoh; Paul Abrams
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.696

9.  Primary and repeat surgical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in parous women in the UK: a register linkage study.

Authors:  Mohamed Abdel-Fattah; Akinbowale Familusi; Shona Fielding; John Ford; Sohinee Bhattacharya
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Effects of genital prolapse surgery and hysterectomy on pelvic floor function.

Authors:  J-P W R Roovers; M M E Lakeman
Journal:  Facts Views Vis Obgyn       Date:  2009
View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years' experience.

Authors:  Helen Jefferis; Natalia Price; Simon Jackson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review.

Authors:  Stephanie Deblaere; Jan Hauspy; Karen Hansen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 1.932

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.