Archivos espanoles de urologia · 2012
Surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse with Prolift® mesh in patients with risk of recurrence.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Martínez-Franco Eva, Amat-Tardiu Lluís, Rodríguez-Mias Núria, Cortés-Laguna Laura, Laïlla-Vicens Josep María
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to analyze the results obtained in pelvic floor surgery using a non-absorbable mesh in selected patients with risk factors of recurrent prolapse.
METHODS: Case series including a total of 76 patients who were surgically treated for severe genital prolapse from July 2005 to December 2009, with risk factors for recurrence of genital prolapse.
RESULTS: We detected 3 cases (6.8%) of symptomatic prolapse recurrence and 6 cases (13.6%) of prolapse of another compartment in the anterior Prolift® group. In the posterior Prolift® group there were no recurrences but there were 2 cases (10.52%) of prolapse of another compartment. In the total Prolift® group, there were 2 cases (16.6%) of symptomatic prolapse recurrence. As for de novo urgency, there were a total of 4 cases (5.33%), 3 in the anterior Prolift® group and 1 in the total Prolift® group. We did not detect any case of severe pain in the pelvis or mesh insertion points that required reoperation due to persistence.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery in selected patients with risk factors for recurrence is a good treatment option to prevent or attempt to reduce the recurrence or reoperation rates currently described.
METHODS: Case series including a total of 76 patients who were surgically treated for severe genital prolapse from July 2005 to December 2009, with risk factors for recurrence of genital prolapse.
RESULTS: We detected 3 cases (6.8%) of symptomatic prolapse recurrence and 6 cases (13.6%) of prolapse of another compartment in the anterior Prolift® group. In the posterior Prolift® group there were no recurrences but there were 2 cases (10.52%) of prolapse of another compartment. In the total Prolift® group, there were 2 cases (16.6%) of symptomatic prolapse recurrence. As for de novo urgency, there were a total of 4 cases (5.33%), 3 in the anterior Prolift® group and 1 in the total Prolift® group. We did not detect any case of severe pain in the pelvis or mesh insertion points that required reoperation due to persistence.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery in selected patients with risk factors for recurrence is a good treatment option to prevent or attempt to reduce the recurrence or reoperation rates currently described.