European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2013
Anatomical and functional assessment of anterior colporrhaphy versus polypropylene mesh surgery in cystocele treatment.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Turgal Mert, Sivaslioglu Akin, Yildiz Askin, Dolen Ismail
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the anatomical and functional results of traditional anterior colporrhaphy and polypropylene mesh surgery in cystocele treatment.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study conducted in the Urogynecology Clinic of Etlik Zubeyde Hanim Maternity and Women's Health Teaching and Research Hospital between June 2006 and February 2007. Forty patients with stage II and III cystocele according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system were allocated by a computer programme to conventional or mesh surgery. Twenty patients each underwent anterior colporrhaphy (group I) or polypropylene mesh (Sofradim(®), Parieten) surgery (group II). Both groups were followed for 12 months.
RESULTS: At the end of the 12th month, anatomical cure rates were 15/20 (75%) and 19/20 (95%) in groups I and II, respectively, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p<0.05). De novo stress urinary incontinence developed in one patient in group I. Mesh erosion developed postoperatively in three cases (15%).
CONCLUSION: In terms of anatomical cure rates, polypropylene mesh surgery was the more successful treatment option when compared with anterior colporrhaphy at the end of 1 year follow-up.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study conducted in the Urogynecology Clinic of Etlik Zubeyde Hanim Maternity and Women's Health Teaching and Research Hospital between June 2006 and February 2007. Forty patients with stage II and III cystocele according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system were allocated by a computer programme to conventional or mesh surgery. Twenty patients each underwent anterior colporrhaphy (group I) or polypropylene mesh (Sofradim(®), Parieten) surgery (group II). Both groups were followed for 12 months.
RESULTS: At the end of the 12th month, anatomical cure rates were 15/20 (75%) and 19/20 (95%) in groups I and II, respectively, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p<0.05). De novo stress urinary incontinence developed in one patient in group I. Mesh erosion developed postoperatively in three cases (15%).
CONCLUSION: In terms of anatomical cure rates, polypropylene mesh surgery was the more successful treatment option when compared with anterior colporrhaphy at the end of 1 year follow-up.