International urogynecology journal · 2022
Feasibility of combining pelvic reconstruction with gynecologic oncology-related surgery.
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.
Kohut Adrian, Whitaker Taylor, Walter Logan, Li Susan Y, Han Elinor, Lee Stephen, Wakabayashi Mark T, Dellinger Thanh H, Han Ernest S, Rodriguez-Rodriguez Lorna, Chung Christopher
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: At our institution, every patient seen by the gynecologic oncology service is screened for pelvic floor dysfunction. This study was aimed at determining if a combined surgical approach by gynecologic oncology and urogynecology services at our institution was feasible and safe for this patient population.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing combined surgery by gynecologic oncology and urogynecology services at our institution from 2013 to 2021. Perioperative variables, postoperative adverse events, and long-term outcomes were assessed, and descriptive statistics were performed.
RESULTS: From 20 December 2013 to 29 January 2021, a total of 102 patients underwent concurrent surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence. Seventy-three patients (71.6%) had normal/benign pathologic conditions, and 29 (28.4%) had premalignant/malignant pathologic conditions. Ten patients (9.8%) had a postoperative complication, including reoperation for exposed midurethral sling (4.9%), urinary retention requiring midurethral sling release (2.9%), reoperation for hemoperitoneum (1.0%), and anemia requiring blood transfusion (1.0%). Nine complications occurred in patients with benign/normal pathologic conditions (12.3%), and one complication occurred in patients with pre-malignant/malignant pathologic conditions (3.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: In our single-institution experience, concurrent gynecologic oncology and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery were safe and feasible in combination with no reported major morbidity events.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing combined surgery by gynecologic oncology and urogynecology services at our institution from 2013 to 2021. Perioperative variables, postoperative adverse events, and long-term outcomes were assessed, and descriptive statistics were performed.
RESULTS: From 20 December 2013 to 29 January 2021, a total of 102 patients underwent concurrent surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence. Seventy-three patients (71.6%) had normal/benign pathologic conditions, and 29 (28.4%) had premalignant/malignant pathologic conditions. Ten patients (9.8%) had a postoperative complication, including reoperation for exposed midurethral sling (4.9%), urinary retention requiring midurethral sling release (2.9%), reoperation for hemoperitoneum (1.0%), and anemia requiring blood transfusion (1.0%). Nine complications occurred in patients with benign/normal pathologic conditions (12.3%), and one complication occurred in patients with pre-malignant/malignant pathologic conditions (3.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: In our single-institution experience, concurrent gynecologic oncology and pelvic floor reconstructive surgery were safe and feasible in combination with no reported major morbidity events.