Literature DB >> 8987919

Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation.

J T Benson1, V Lucente, E McClellan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to determine whether a vaginal or abdominal approach is more effective in correcting uterovaginal prolapse. STUDY
DESIGN: Eighty-eight women with cervical prolapse to or beyond the hymen or with vaginal vault inversion > 50% of its length and anterior vaginal wall descent to or beyond the hymen were randomized to a vaginal versus abdominal surgical approach. Forty-eight women underwent a vaginal approach with bilateral sacrospinous vault suspension and paravaginal repair, and 40 women underwent an abdominal approach with colposacral suspension and paravaginal repair. Ancillary procedures were performed as indicated. Detailed pelvic examination was performed postoperatively by the nonsurgeon coauthor yearly up to 5 years. The women were examined while standing during maximum strain. Surgery was classified as optimally effective if the woman remained asymptomatic, the vaginal apex was supported above the levator plate, and no protrusion of any vaginal tissue beyond the hymen occurred. Surgical effectiveness was considered unsatisfactory if the woman was symptomatic, the apex descended > 50% of its length, or the vaginal wall protruded beyond the hymen.
RESULTS: Eighty women (vaginal 42, abdominal 38) were available for evaluation at 1 to 5.5 years (mean 2.5 years). The groups were similar in age, weight, parity, and estrogen status, and 56% had undergone prior pelvic surgery. There was no significant difference between the groups in morbidity, complications, hemoglobin change, dyspareunia, pain, or hospital stay. The vaginal group had longer catheter use, more urinary tract infections, more incontinence, decreased operative time, and lower hospital charge. Surgical effectiveness was optimal in 29% of the vaginal group and 58% of the abdominal group and was unsatisfactory leading to reoperation in 33% of the vaginal group and 16% of the abdominal group. The reoperations included procedures for recurrent incontinence in 12% of the vaginal and 2% of the abdominal groups. The relative risk of optimal effectiveness by the abdominal route is 2.03 (95% confidence interval 1.22 to 9.83), and the relative risk of unsatisfactory outcome using the vaginal route is 2.11 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 4.94).
CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructive pelvic surgery for correction of significant pelvic support defects was more effective with an abdominal approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8987919     DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70084-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  117 in total

Review 1.  The use and misuse of prosthetic materials in reconstructive pelvic surgery: does the evidence support our surgical practice?

Authors:  Mark D Walters
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2003-12-02

2.  Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: "UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse".

Authors:  Miles Murphy; Adam Holzberg; Heather van Raalte; Neeraj Kohli; Howard B Goldman; Vincent Lucente
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-11-16       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse within 10 years of primary surgery for prolapse.

Authors:  Philipp T Gotthart; Thomas Aigmueller; Peter F J Lang; George Ralph; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Karl Tamussino
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature.

Authors:  E J Stanford; A Cassidenti; M D Moen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Symptomatic urinary tract infections after surgery for prolapse and/or incontinence.

Authors:  Gary Sutkin; Marianna Alperin; Leslie Meyn; Harold C Wiesenfeld; Rennique Ellison; Halina M Zyczynski
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 6.  Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  Xueli Jia; Cathryn Glazener; Graham Mowatt; David Jenkinson; Cynthia Fraser; Christine Bain; Jennifer Burr
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies (ACCESS).

Authors:  E R Mueller; K Kenton; C Tarnay; L Brubaker; A Rosenman; B Smith; K Stroupe; C Bresee; A Pantuck; P Schulam; J T Anger
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2012-05-27       Impact factor: 2.226

8.  Abdominal sacral colpopexy versus sacrospinous ligament fixation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Mika S Ohno; Monica L Richardson; Eric R Sokol
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Collagen-coated vs noncoated low-weight polypropylene meshes in a sheep model for vaginal surgery. A pilot study.

Authors:  Renaud de Tayrac; Antoine Alves; Michel Thérin
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2006-08-29

10.  Treatment of obstructed defecation.

Authors:  C Neal Ellis
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2005-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.