Literature DB >> 31286157

Long-term safety, objective and subjective outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy without peritoneal closure.

Crissie M van den Akker1, Wenche M Klerkx2, Kirsten B Kluivers3, Hugo W F van Eijndhoven4, Mariëlla I J Withagen5, Piet C Scholten1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is performed to support DeLancey's level I in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Although several studies have been conducted on the safety, objective and subjective outcomes of LSC, the specific effect of retroperitonealisation of mesh is unknown. This study is aimed at analysing the safety, objective and subjective outcomes of the LSC without peritoneal closure of mesh.
METHODS: The patients included have undergone an LSC for POP between 2004 and 2014. Retrospectively, a cohort of n = 178 was identified and asked to participate in a follow-up study. Chart research was performed. When informed consent was obtained, questionnaires were sent and the patients underwent a physical examination, including a POP-Q assessment. Each complication was scored by four reviewers for possibly being related to the non-peritonealisation of mesh.
RESULTS: The data on the outcome cohorts were complete for safety n = 178, objective n = 124, and subjective n = 61. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score is provided in 106 questionnaires. In this study, 77 complications were observed in 49 different patients. The total success rate (no reoperation, no descent beyond the hymen and no bulging symptoms) is 59.0% with a median follow-up (IQR) of 35 months (18-51). Seventy-six patients (71.7%) described their condition as being (much) improved after LSC.
CONCLUSIONS: Three serious complications observed during the 178 LSCs were, by full consensus, thought to be possibly related to the non-peritonealisation of mesh. More than 70% of the patients found their condition to be (much) improved after the procedure.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mesh; Peritonealisation; Prolapse; Sacrocolpopexy; Safety; Subjective outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31286157     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-019-04020-w

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


  3 in total

1.  An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery.

Authors:  Bernard T Haylen; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Michel Cosson; G Willy Davila; Jan Deprest; Peter L Dwyer; Brigitte Fatton; Ervin Kocjancic; Joseph Lee; Chris Maher; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer; Ralph J Webb
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  [The use of mesh in vaginal prolapse].

Authors:  A L Fred Milani; Astrid Vollebregt; Jan Paul W R Roovers; Mariella I J Withagen
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  2013

3.  Nonobstetric risk factors for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Ann Miedel; Gunilla Tegerstedt; Marianne Mæhle-Schmidt; Olof Nyrén; Margareta Hammarström
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 7.661

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.