Literature DB >> 8856304

Comparison of surgical and postoperative complications of vaginal hysterectomy and Manchester procedure.

D Kalogirou1, G Antoniou, P Karakitsos, O Kalogirou.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Manchester procedure (MP) was compared to vaginal hysterectomy (VH). Surgical and postoperative complications were evaluated.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective review of women undergoing VH and MP for uterine prolapse was performed. All the operations were performed between 1974-1994. MP was performed in 190 patients and VH (Heaney technique) in 231 women.
RESULTS: MP patients, when compared to VH patients, were more likely to be older and postmenopausal at the time of surgery. Statistically significant differences were found for operative time and blood loss. This difference was not dependent on the performance of anterior or posterior repair.
CONCLUSIONS: We suggest the use of MP as an alternative to VH in the absence of uterine pathology in appropriate candidates with uterine prolapse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8856304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Gynaecol Oncol        ISSN: 0392-2936            Impact factor:   0.196


  10 in total

Review 1.  Vaginal surgery for uterine descent; which options do we have? A review of the literature.

Authors:  Viviane Dietz; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; C Huub van der Vaart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-12-16

Review 2.  Uterine-preserving POP surgery.

Authors:  Robert Gutman; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  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

4.  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

Review 5.  The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review.

Authors:  Cæcilie Krogsgaard Tolstrup; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes.

Authors:  Sissel Hegdahl Oversand; Anne C Staff; Ellen Borstad; Rune Svenningsen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 7.  Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

Authors:  Alessandro Zucchi; Massimo Lazzeri; Massimo Porena; Luigi Mearini; Elisabetta Costantini
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 8.  Role of Hysteropexy in the Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Authors:  Zoe S Gan; Daniel S Roberson; Ariana L Smith
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 2.862

9.  The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication.

Authors:  Tiny A de Boer; Alfredo L Milani; Kirsten B Kluivers; Mariella I J Withagen; Mark E Vierhout
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-08-11

10.  Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study).

Authors:  Sascha F M Schulten; Rosa A Enklaar; Kirsten B Kluivers; Sanne A L van Leijsen; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Eddy M M Adang; Jeroen van Bavel; Heleen van Dongen; Maaike B E Gerritse; Iris van Gestel; G G Alec Malmberg; Ronald J C Mouw; Deliana A van Rumpt-van de Geest; Wilbert A Spaans; Annemarie van der Steen; Jelle Stekelenburg; E Stella M Tiersma; Anneke C Verkleij-Hagoort; Astrid Vollebregt; Chantal B M Wingen; Mirjam Weemhoff; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 2.809

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.