International urogynecology journal · 2019
Long-term subjective, clinical and sonographic outcomes after native-tissue and mesh-augmented posterior colporrhaphy.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gillor Moshe, Langer Susanne, Dietz Hans Peter
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our primary objective was to describe long-term outcomes after posterior colporrhaphy with and without mesh augmentation.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 93 patients after posterior colporrhaphy (native tissue in 39 and synthetic mesh augmented in 54). The indication was symptoms of prolapse with clinical posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Mesh augmentation and concomitant prolapse operations were performed at the surgeon's discretion. Patients underwent interview, clinical examination and 4D pelvic floor ultrasound. Imaging analysis was done with the reviewer blinded against all other data. Generalized linear modeling was used to compare groups with logistic regression for binary and linear regression for continuous outcomes.
RESULTS: Patients were seen on average 5.3 years after surgery and described persistent symptoms of prolapse in 32% and of obstructed defecation in 33%. Clinical recurrence (Bp ≥ -1) was seen in 20%, while sonographic recurrence (rectal ampulla descent to ≥ 15 mm below the symphysis pubis) was noted in 12%. A true rectocele was diagnosed in 33% of patients. No major differences in outcomes were found between those who underwent native tissue and those who had a mesh-augmented repair.
CONCLUSIONS: Mesh augmentation was not superior to native tissue posterior colporrhaphy, and both were only moderately effective in eliminating a true rectocele and symptoms of obstructed defecation 5 years after reconstructive surgery.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study including 93 patients after posterior colporrhaphy (native tissue in 39 and synthetic mesh augmented in 54). The indication was symptoms of prolapse with clinical posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Mesh augmentation and concomitant prolapse operations were performed at the surgeon's discretion. Patients underwent interview, clinical examination and 4D pelvic floor ultrasound. Imaging analysis was done with the reviewer blinded against all other data. Generalized linear modeling was used to compare groups with logistic regression for binary and linear regression for continuous outcomes.
RESULTS: Patients were seen on average 5.3 years after surgery and described persistent symptoms of prolapse in 32% and of obstructed defecation in 33%. Clinical recurrence (Bp ≥ -1) was seen in 20%, while sonographic recurrence (rectal ampulla descent to ≥ 15 mm below the symphysis pubis) was noted in 12%. A true rectocele was diagnosed in 33% of patients. No major differences in outcomes were found between those who underwent native tissue and those who had a mesh-augmented repair.
CONCLUSIONS: Mesh augmentation was not superior to native tissue posterior colporrhaphy, and both were only moderately effective in eliminating a true rectocele and symptoms of obstructed defecation 5 years after reconstructive surgery.