The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2014
Transvaginal mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Jiang Guojing, Yan Bin, Wang Yu, Ma Qingliang
Аннотация
AIM: We compared outcomes for traditional vaginal surgery with uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) versus transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of pelvic organ prolapse cases that occurred between February 2007 and December 2011. Success rates for traditional vaginal repair plus USLS and transvaginal mesh repair were determined.
RESULTS: As compared with traditional surgery (n=81), using mesh (n=90) for stage III or IV prolapse resulted in higher rates of successful treatment. However, mesh repair also resulted in increased intraoperative blood loss and postoperative adverse events, such as pain and dyspareunia.
CONCLUSION: Traditional vaginal repair plus USLS was an improvement on traditional surgery, resulting in a higher anatomical success rate. On the other hand, both intraoperative and postoperative complications in mesh repair could be reduced by protective factors such as the surgeon's experience.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of pelvic organ prolapse cases that occurred between February 2007 and December 2011. Success rates for traditional vaginal repair plus USLS and transvaginal mesh repair were determined.
RESULTS: As compared with traditional surgery (n=81), using mesh (n=90) for stage III or IV prolapse resulted in higher rates of successful treatment. However, mesh repair also resulted in increased intraoperative blood loss and postoperative adverse events, such as pain and dyspareunia.
CONCLUSION: Traditional vaginal repair plus USLS was an improvement on traditional surgery, resulting in a higher anatomical success rate. On the other hand, both intraoperative and postoperative complications in mesh repair could be reduced by protective factors such as the surgeon's experience.