Literature DB >> 30627828

Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparison of two different techniques used in urology and gynecology.

Adnan Orhan1, Kemal Ozerkan2, Hakan Vuruskan3, Gokhan Ocakoglu4, Isil Kasapoglu2, Bahadir Koşan2, Gurkan Uncu2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Numerous studies have found that the short-term results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse are safe and effective. This study evaluates the long-term results of the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy operation between the urology and gynecology branches.
METHODS: A prospective study enrolling 206 patients was conducted to evaluate laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as a surgical treatment for vaginal vault prolapse from 2011 to 2014. Two different surgical branches (urology and gynecology) applied laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy to their patients with their own techniques. The long-term results were assessed postoperatively after 4 years by pelvic examinations, including the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q) and quality-of-life assessments using validated questionnaires.
RESULTS: A total of 190 patients (94 urology and 96 gynecology patients) received a full clinical follow-up examination between April 2014-June 2018. Postoperative pelvic organ prolapse recurrence rates in each compartment were similar in both groups during the 4 years; 87.2% of the urology and 86.5% of the gynecology patients had no prolapse in any compartment according to the POP-Q system. The reoperation rate was 5.3% for the urology and 6.2% for the gynecology group. Mesh erosion was detected in two patients in both groups. Three patients responded to local estrogen therapy, and we removed the mesh vaginally in one patient. The subjective cure rate was 89.4% in the urology and 88.5% in the gynecology group after 4 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Although different surgical branches perform laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with their own techniques, long-term anatomical and functional results are similar between the branches. From a urogynecological point of view, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a gold standard surgical procedure that can be performed by both urologists and gynecologists with similar long-term outcomes.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gynecology; Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy; Long-term follow-up; Urology

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30627828     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-03858-w

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


  29 in total

1.  Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Wesley S Hilger; Marilee Poulson; Peggy A Norton
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 8.661

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.  Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Geller; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Jennifer M Wu; Anthony G Visco
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  A comparison of costs for abdominal, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted sacral colpopexy.

Authors:  Minita Patel; David O'Sullivan; Paul K Tulikangas
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-10-16

5.  Is hysterectomy or the use of graft necessary for the reconstructive surgery for uterine prolapse?

Authors:  Myung Jae Jeon; Hyun Joo Jung; Hyun Jung Choi; Sei Kwang Kim; Sang Wook Bai
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-10-10

6.  Long-term follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Dimitri Sarlos; LaVonne Kots; Gloria Ryu; Gabriel Schaer
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-04-04       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979-2006.

Authors:  Keisha A Jones; Jonathan P Shepherd; Sallie S Oliphant; Li Wang; Clareann H Bunker; Jerry L Lowder
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 8.  Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: abdominal and vaginal approaches.

Authors:  Kristina Cvach; Peter Dwyer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-10-22       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study.

Authors:  R M Freeman; K Pantazis; A Thomson; J Frappell; L Bombieri; P Moran; M Slack; P Scott; M Waterfield
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Anique M J van Oudheusden; Ben Willem J Mol; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 2.894

View more
  4 in total

1.  Long-term safety and efficacy of laparoscopically placed mesh for apical prolapse.

Authors:  Gemma Nightingale; Christian Phillips
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Georgina Baines; Natalia Price; Helen Jefferis; Rufus Cartwright; Simon R Jackson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-04-30       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

4.  Sacrocolpopexy: Patient Outcomes Support the Use of Non-Crosslinked Acellular Dermal Matrix as an Alternative to the Synthetic Polypropylene Mesh.

Authors:  Magdalene Karon; Somu Chatterjee
Journal:  J Gynecol Surg       Date:  2019-12-09
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.