Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023
Effect of anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair by modified transvaginal mesh surgery: a retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Hu Pan, Lei Li, Wang Ying, Tang Jing, Liu Lubin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To explore clinical outcomes and complications of modified Transvaginal mesh (M-TVM) for advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse in 1 year follow-up.
METHODS: 574 patients underwent TVM surgeries from 2019 to 2020 were collected and divided into TVM group and M-TVM group, all preoperative and postoperative data was obtained and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: 285 women were involved eventually, including 181 in TVM group and 104 in M-TVM group. No significant difference of general conditions was found between these two groups. After long-term follow-up, patients in TVM group were more likely to suffer from pelvic pain than M-TVM group (P = 0.046). Meshes seemed much wider in M-TVM group (4.5 ± 0.69 cm) than in TVM group (3.0 ± 0.91 cm). No matter TVM or M-TVM, surgeries can significantly change point Aa and Ba when compared to preoperative data. Compared to TVM group, point C and D were significant changed in patients in M-TVM group after surgery (P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: M-TVM is a commendable procedure that can significant correct anterior prolapse with mesh extended wider, and also supply stable apical support at the same time.
METHODS: 574 patients underwent TVM surgeries from 2019 to 2020 were collected and divided into TVM group and M-TVM group, all preoperative and postoperative data was obtained and compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: 285 women were involved eventually, including 181 in TVM group and 104 in M-TVM group. No significant difference of general conditions was found between these two groups. After long-term follow-up, patients in TVM group were more likely to suffer from pelvic pain than M-TVM group (P = 0.046). Meshes seemed much wider in M-TVM group (4.5 ± 0.69 cm) than in TVM group (3.0 ± 0.91 cm). No matter TVM or M-TVM, surgeries can significantly change point Aa and Ba when compared to preoperative data. Compared to TVM group, point C and D were significant changed in patients in M-TVM group after surgery (P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: M-TVM is a commendable procedure that can significant correct anterior prolapse with mesh extended wider, and also supply stable apical support at the same time.