Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2013
Transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: one-year outcome analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Khandwala Salil
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the role of Prolift + M (PP-PG) vaginal mesh surgery to correct uterovaginal prolapse not only from an anatomic but also a subjective (patient's) standpoint.
METHODS: A prospective cohort of subjects treated with transvaginal mesh for prolapse between April 2009 and November 2010 was analyzed. A composite score that included subjective criteria of absence of a bothersome bulge and objective criteria based on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification lower than stage II was used to assess treatment success.
RESULTS: Transvaginal mesh was performed in 157 subjects (age, 64.7 ± 11.6 years; body mass index, 28.5 ± 4.8 kg/m) for pelvic organ prolapse. Five anterior mesh surgeries (3.2%), 48 posterior mesh surgeries (30.6%), and 104 total mesh surgeries (66.2%) were performed in subjects with stage II or greater degrees of prolapse. Stage II prolapse was noted in 44 subjects (28.0%), 91 subjects (58.0%) had stage III prolapse, and 22 subjects (14.0%) had stage IV prolapse. The mean follow-up was 13 months. Our composite success score was 88.1%. Pure anatomic success based on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification lower than stage II was 94%. The mean operative time was 117.8 ± 42.4 minutes. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 106.1 ± 116.4 mL. There were 3 cases (2.2%) of mesh exposure in the vagina. There were no visceral injuries. The incidence of de novo dyspareunia was 6%.
CONCLUSION: Transvaginal PP-PG mesh surgery is safe and effective with few postoperative morbidities.
METHODS: A prospective cohort of subjects treated with transvaginal mesh for prolapse between April 2009 and November 2010 was analyzed. A composite score that included subjective criteria of absence of a bothersome bulge and objective criteria based on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification lower than stage II was used to assess treatment success.
RESULTS: Transvaginal mesh was performed in 157 subjects (age, 64.7 ± 11.6 years; body mass index, 28.5 ± 4.8 kg/m) for pelvic organ prolapse. Five anterior mesh surgeries (3.2%), 48 posterior mesh surgeries (30.6%), and 104 total mesh surgeries (66.2%) were performed in subjects with stage II or greater degrees of prolapse. Stage II prolapse was noted in 44 subjects (28.0%), 91 subjects (58.0%) had stage III prolapse, and 22 subjects (14.0%) had stage IV prolapse. The mean follow-up was 13 months. Our composite success score was 88.1%. Pure anatomic success based on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification lower than stage II was 94%. The mean operative time was 117.8 ± 42.4 minutes. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 106.1 ± 116.4 mL. There were 3 cases (2.2%) of mesh exposure in the vagina. There were no visceral injuries. The incidence of de novo dyspareunia was 6%.
CONCLUSION: Transvaginal PP-PG mesh surgery is safe and effective with few postoperative morbidities.