| Literature DB >> 33574622 |
Abstract
The current treatment for urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse includes a wide range of innovative options for conservative and surgical therapies. Initial treatment for pelvic floor dysfunction consists of individualized topical estrogen therapy and professional training in passive and active pelvic floor exercises with biofeedback, vibration plates, and a number of vaginal devices. The method of choice for the surgical repair of stress urinary incontinence consists of placement of a suburethral sling. A number of different methods are available for the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse using either a vaginal or an abdominal/endoscopic approach and autologous tissue or alloplastic materials for reconstruction. This makes it possible to achieve optimal reconstruction both in younger women, many of them affected by postpartum trauma, and in older women later in their lives. Treatment includes assessing the patient's state of health and anesthetic risk profile. It is important to determine a realistically achievable patient preference after explaining the individualized concept and presenting the alternative surgical options. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ).Entities:
Keywords: pelvic organ prolapse; sacrocolpopexy; stress incontinence; suburethral sling; vaginal uterine fixation
Year: 2021 PMID: 33574622 PMCID: PMC7870286 DOI: 10.1055/a-1302-7803
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd ISSN: 0016-5751 Impact factor: 2.915
Table 1 Factors affecting the choice of surgical approach in prolapse surgery.
The patientʼs state of health; merely considering the patientʼs age is not sufficient |
Existing anatomical and functional defects in the pelvic floor area |
Intraoperative and postoperative risks of the chosen surgical method |
The success rates of specific methods |
Is the patient still sexually active? |
The patientʼs wishes and needs in terms of outcome and quality of life |
The physicianʼs technical skill and experience in carrying out specific surgical techniques |
Table 2 Contraindications for uterus-preserving prolapse repair 17 .
Symptomatic myomas, adenomyosis, endometrial abnormalities |
Recent or previous cervical pathology |
Abnormal or postmenopausal bleeding |
Tamoxifen therapy |
Familial BRCA 1 and 2 risk |
Status post hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer with 40 – 50% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer |
Regular gynecological follow-up not assured |
Table 3 Various techniques used in abdominal-endoscopic prolapse surgery 27 .
Median suspension of the vaginal vault, cervix or uterus to the longitudinal anterior ligament at the level of the sacral promontory or S1/S2 level |
Lateral anchoring of uterus or vaginal vault to the rectal fascia using a mesh while avoiding the area of the sacral promontory |
Laparoscopic pectopexy with bilateral fixation of the vagina or cervix to the iliopectineal ligaments at the S2 level |
Bilateral vaginal fixation using laparoscopic vaginosacropexy (laVASA) or laparoscopic cervicosacropexy (laCESA) with mesh placement, repair of the uterosacral ligaments, and fixation to the prevertebral fascia at the S1 level |
Tab. 1 Einflussfaktoren auf die Wahl des Operationszuganges bei Prolapsoperationen.
Gesundheitszustand der Patientin; eine alleinige Betrachtung des Alters reicht nicht aus |
vorliegende anatomische und funktionelle Defekte im Bereich des Beckenbodens |
intra- und postoperative Risiken der gewählten Operationsmethode |
vorliegende Erfolgsraten der Methode |
Ist die Patientin noch sexuell aktiv? |
Wünsche und Bedürfnisse der Patientin hinsichtlich Ergebnis und Lebensqualität |
eigene technische Fähigkeiten und Erfahrungen bei der Durchführung der speziellen Methode |
Tab. 2 Kontraindikationen für eine uteruserhaltende Deszensuskorrektur 17 .
symptomatische Myome, Adenomyosis, Endometriumauffälligkeiten |
aktuelle oder stattgehabte Zervixpathologie |
abnormale bzw. postmenopausale Blutungen |
Tamoxifen-Therapie |
familiäres BRCA-1- und -2-Risiko |
Z. n. hereditärem nicht polypösem Kolonkarzinom mit 40 – 50% Lebensrisiko für ein Endometriumkarzinom |
regelmäßige gynäkologische Nachsorge nicht gewährleistet |
Tab. 3 Verschiedene Techniken der abdominal-endoskopischen Prolaps-Chirurgie 27 .
mediane Verankerung von Scheidenstumpf, Zervix oder Uterus am Lig. longitudinale anterius auf Höhe des Promontoriums oder S1/S2 |
laterale Verankerung des Uterus oder Scheidenstumpfes an der Rektusfaszie mit Mesh-Interponat unter Vermeidung der Promontoriumregion |
laparoskopische Pektopexie mit bilateraler Fixation der Scheide oder Zervix an den iliopektinealen Ligamenten auf Höhe S2 |
bilaterale Fixierung der Scheide durch laparoskopische Vaginosakropexie (laVASA) oder laparoskopische Zervikosakropexie (laCESA) mit Mesh-Interponat unter Restaurierung der sakrouterinen Ligamente mit Fixierung in der prävertebralen Faszie auf Höhe S1 |