International urogynecology journal · 2012
Does pre-operative traction on the cervix approximate intra-operative uterine prolapse? A randomised controlled trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Chao Fay L, Rosamilia Anna, Dwyer Peter L, Polyakov Alex, Schierlitz Lore, Agnew Gerard
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study aims to compare pre-operative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) point C with and without cervical traction to that obtained intra-operatively in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery and to assess acceptability of examination with cervical traction without anaesthesia.
METHODS: Eighty-one women were randomised to having pre-operative examination with or without cervical traction to measure point C. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded for each pre-operative examination. Comparisons were made between pre-operative and intra-operative findings.
RESULTS: The mean difference between pre-operative and intra-operative point C in the non-traction group was statistically higher than in the traction group (3.2 vs 1.6 cm, p = 0.0001). The level of agreement between pre-operative point C measurement with traction and intra-operative point C measurement was better than pre-operative point C measurement without traction and intra-operative point C measurement on Bland and Altman plots. Women having cervical traction reported significantly greater pain score on the VAS (3.4 vs. 1.2, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to routine pre-operative examination with Valsalva and cough manoeuvres only, pre-operative examination with cervical traction had better agreement with intra-operative point C findings. Although women reported greater pain score when examined with cervical traction, it was still a tolerable and acceptable examination without anaesthesia.
METHODS: Eighty-one women were randomised to having pre-operative examination with or without cervical traction to measure point C. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded for each pre-operative examination. Comparisons were made between pre-operative and intra-operative findings.
RESULTS: The mean difference between pre-operative and intra-operative point C in the non-traction group was statistically higher than in the traction group (3.2 vs 1.6 cm, p = 0.0001). The level of agreement between pre-operative point C measurement with traction and intra-operative point C measurement was better than pre-operative point C measurement without traction and intra-operative point C measurement on Bland and Altman plots. Women having cervical traction reported significantly greater pain score on the VAS (3.4 vs. 1.2, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to routine pre-operative examination with Valsalva and cough manoeuvres only, pre-operative examination with cervical traction had better agreement with intra-operative point C findings. Although women reported greater pain score when examined with cervical traction, it was still a tolerable and acceptable examination without anaesthesia.