Literature DB >> 31891897

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive literature review on current practice.

Ohad Gluck1, Mija Blaganje2, Nikolaus Veit-Rubin3, Christian Phillips4, Jan Deprest5, Barry O'reilly6, Igor But7, Robert Moore8, Stephen Jeffery9, Jorge Milhem Haddad10, Bruno Deval11.   

Abstract

Sacrocolpopexy is considered the preferred treatment for vaginal vault. However, numerous technical variants are being practiced. We aimed to summarize the recent literature in relation to technical aspects of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). We focused on surgical technique, mesh type, concomitant surgeries, and training aspects. We performed 2 independent literature searches in Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Embase electronic databases including the keywords: 'sacrocolpopexy', 'sacral colpopexy' and 'promontofixation'. Full text English-language studies of human patients, who underwent LSC, published from January 1, 2008 to February 26, 2019, were included. Levels of evidence using the modified Oxford grading system were assessed in order to establish a report of the available literature of highest level of evidence. Initially, 953 articles were identified. After excluding duplicates and abstracts screening, 35 articles were included. Vaginal fixation of the mesh can be performed with barbed or non-barbed (level 1), absorbable or non-absorbable sutures (level 2). Fixation of the mesh to the promontory can be performed with non-absorbable sutures or non-absorbable tackers (level 2). The current literature supports using type 1 mesh (level 2). Ventral mesh rectopexy can safely be performed with LSC while concurrent posterior repair has no additional benefit (level 2). There is no consensus regarding the preferred type of hysterectomy or the benefit of an additional anti urinary incontinence procedure. A structured learning program, as well as the number of procedures needed in order to be qualified for performing LSC is yet to be established. There are numerous variants for performing LSC. For many of its technical aspects there is little consensus.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pelvic organ prolapse; Sacrocolpopexy; Surgical treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31891897     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.12.029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  10 in total

1.  A prospective randomized trial comparing Restorelle® Y mesh and flat mesh for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: 24-month outcomes.

Authors:  Cecile A Ferrando; Marie Fidela R Paraiso
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Relationships between pelvic nerves and levator ani muscle for posterior sacrocolpopexy: an anatomic study.

Authors:  Grégoire Rocher; Henri Azaïs; Amélia Favier; Catherine Uzan; Mathieu Castela; Gaby Moawad; Vincent Lavoué; Xavier Morandi; Krystel Nyangoh Timoh; Geoffroy Canlorbe
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 1.246

3.  Medium term anatomical and functional outcomes following modified laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Auran Rosanne B Cortes; Tokumasa Hayashi; Masayoshi Nomura; Yugo Sawada; Shino Tokiwa; Mika Nagae
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-01-28       Impact factor: 1.932

Review 4.  The Future in Standards of Care for Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery to Improve Training and Education.

Authors:  Vlad I Tica; Andrei A Tica; Rudy L De Wilde
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 4.964

5.  Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Junwei Li; Yizhen Sima; Keqin Hua; Yisong Chen; Changdong Hu; Xiaojuan Wang; Zhiying Lu
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.102

6.  A biomechanical analysis of different meshes for reconstructions of the pelvic floor in the porcine model.

Authors:  Nadja Trageser; Axel Sauerwald; Sebastian Ludwig; Wolfram Malter; Kilian Wegmann; Leonidas Karapanos; Julia Radosa; Alina Katharina Jansen; Christian Eichler
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 2.344

7.  Long-term follow up in two cases of pelvic reconstruction using a combined VRAM flap-sacrocolpopexy for severe perineal hernia after abdominoperineal resection.

Authors:  Shotaro Yamamoto; Akihiro Hamuro; Hisashi Nagahara; Hisashi Motomura; Masayasu Koyama; Daisuke Tachibana
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2021-11-21       Impact factor: 1.697

8.  Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse.

Authors:  Ehud Grinstein; Yara Abdelkhalek; Nikolaus Veit-Rubin; Ohad Gluck; Bruno Deval
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Giuseppe Campagna; Lorenzo Vacca; Giovanni Panico; Valerio Rumolo; Daniela Caramazza; Andrea Lombisani; Cristiano Rossitto; Pierre Gadonneix; Giovanni Scambia; Alfredo Ercoli
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 10.  Current Role of Hysterectomy in Pelvic Floor Surgery: Time for Reappraisal? A Review of Current Literature and Expert Discussion.

Authors:  Guenter K Noé; Annelize Barnard; Sven Schiermeier; Michael Anapolski
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 3.411

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.