International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2020
Mesh exposure after transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery: Out of permissible range?
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.
Kato Kumiko, Suzuki Shoji, Ishiyama Akinobu, Kawanishi Hideji, Matsui Hirotaka, Kato Takashi, Hirabayashi Hiroki, Hattori Ryohei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of postoperative complications after transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery, and whether modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery (without transobturator arms or posterior mesh) has less prevalence of mesh exposure compared with conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery.
METHODS: Medical charts were retrospectively examined for 2648 patients who underwent transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in a general hospital (2006-2017). Conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery (Prolift-type, n = 2258) was used, with a shift from 2015 to modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery (Uphold-type, n = 330). Patients were instructed to have >2 years of follow up and to report if they had problems regarding the operation.
RESULTS: The prevalence of mesh exposure was 34 out of 2648 (1.28%); 18 vagina (0.68%), 10 bladder (0.38%), two ureter (0.08%) and four rectum (0.15%). The modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group had only one case with vaginal exposure. Vaginal exposure was managed transvaginally or followed by observation. Rectal exposure was managed transvaginally without colostomy. Bladder exposure was managed by transurethral resection with saline. Open ureterocystostomy was carried out to treat ureteral exposure. In the conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group, three cases of ureteral stenosis and one case with vaginal evisceration of the small intestine were managed transvaginally. The prevalence of postoperative chronic pain was 13 out of 2648 (0.49%; with one patient in the modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group). The patients underwent pharmacotherapy, and one patient underwent additional surgical treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The reoperation rate as a result of complications after transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery seems to be low. The reoperation rate as a result of prolapse recurrence is also low. A shift from conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery to modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery might contribute to a further decrease in the risk of complications.
METHODS: Medical charts were retrospectively examined for 2648 patients who underwent transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery in a general hospital (2006-2017). Conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery (Prolift-type, n = 2258) was used, with a shift from 2015 to modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery (Uphold-type, n = 330). Patients were instructed to have >2 years of follow up and to report if they had problems regarding the operation.
RESULTS: The prevalence of mesh exposure was 34 out of 2648 (1.28%); 18 vagina (0.68%), 10 bladder (0.38%), two ureter (0.08%) and four rectum (0.15%). The modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group had only one case with vaginal exposure. Vaginal exposure was managed transvaginally or followed by observation. Rectal exposure was managed transvaginally without colostomy. Bladder exposure was managed by transurethral resection with saline. Open ureterocystostomy was carried out to treat ureteral exposure. In the conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group, three cases of ureteral stenosis and one case with vaginal evisceration of the small intestine were managed transvaginally. The prevalence of postoperative chronic pain was 13 out of 2648 (0.49%; with one patient in the modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery group). The patients underwent pharmacotherapy, and one patient underwent additional surgical treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: The reoperation rate as a result of complications after transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery seems to be low. The reoperation rate as a result of prolapse recurrence is also low. A shift from conventional transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery to modified transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery might contribute to a further decrease in the risk of complications.