The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2011
Surgical outcomes following total Prolift: colpopexy versus hysteropexy.
Сравнительное 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.
McDermott Colleen D, Terry Colin L, Woodman Patrick J, Hale Douglass S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Total Prolift(®) is a pelvic floor repair system that is performed transvaginally and can be carried out with or without the uterus in situ.
AIM: To compare surgical outcomes following total Prolift colpopexy (TPC) and total Prolift hysteropexy (TPH).
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of women that underwent TPC (n = 65) or TPH (n = 24). Outcomes were compared between groups using Student's t-test, ANCOVA and Fisher's exact tests (P ≤ 0.05).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between TPC and TPH for all peri-operative variables. Patients were followed 6-12 months after surgery. Post-operatively, TPC patients had significantly higher pelvic organ prolapse-quantification (POP-Q) point C measurements (P = 0.05); however, all other POP-Q measurements were similar, including POP-Q apical stage of prolapse, with 99% in the TPC group and 92% in the TPH group at stage I or less. Post-operative mesh erosion, prolapse symptoms, surgical satisfaction, sexual activity and dyspareunia rates did not significantly differ between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that TPC and TPH have similar surgical outcomes, except for vaginal vault measurements reflected by POP-Q point C.
AIM: To compare surgical outcomes following total Prolift colpopexy (TPC) and total Prolift hysteropexy (TPH).
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of women that underwent TPC (n = 65) or TPH (n = 24). Outcomes were compared between groups using Student's t-test, ANCOVA and Fisher's exact tests (P ≤ 0.05).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between TPC and TPH for all peri-operative variables. Patients were followed 6-12 months after surgery. Post-operatively, TPC patients had significantly higher pelvic organ prolapse-quantification (POP-Q) point C measurements (P = 0.05); however, all other POP-Q measurements were similar, including POP-Q apical stage of prolapse, with 99% in the TPC group and 92% in the TPH group at stage I or less. Post-operative mesh erosion, prolapse symptoms, surgical satisfaction, sexual activity and dyspareunia rates did not significantly differ between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that TPC and TPH have similar surgical outcomes, except for vaginal vault measurements reflected by POP-Q point C.