International urogynecology journal · 2021
Laparoscopic excision and re-attachment of sacrocolpopexy mesh.
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.
Malekzadeh Maral, Ramirez-Caban Laura, Hurtado Eric
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Two cases are described and surgical techniques for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy are demonstrated at an academic affiliated hospital in patients with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
METHODS: A laparoscopic approach was taken for surgical intervention, with excision of prior detached vaginal mesh and re-attachment of new sacrocolpopexy mesh.
RESULTS: Two patients presented with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed surgical treatment. The first case is a 68-year-old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, sacrocolpopexy, and mid-urethral sling performed at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 3 prolapse. Mesh was loosely attached to the cervix. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 1 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. The second case is a 62-year old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post-total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 2 prolapse. The mesh was loosely attached to the vagina. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 0 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. Both patients reported improvement in symptoms and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed initial sacrocolpopexy procedure can be safely accomplished laparoscopically through identification of points of mesh detachment, anatomical landmarks, removal of the prior vaginal portion of the mesh, and attachment of a new surgical mesh to either the sacrum or the sacral portion of the mesh.
METHODS: A laparoscopic approach was taken for surgical intervention, with excision of prior detached vaginal mesh and re-attachment of new sacrocolpopexy mesh.
RESULTS: Two patients presented with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed surgical treatment. The first case is a 68-year-old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, sacrocolpopexy, and mid-urethral sling performed at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 3 prolapse. Mesh was loosely attached to the cervix. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 1 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. The second case is a 62-year old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post-total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 2 prolapse. The mesh was loosely attached to the vagina. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 0 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. Both patients reported improvement in symptoms and overall quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed initial sacrocolpopexy procedure can be safely accomplished laparoscopically through identification of points of mesh detachment, anatomical landmarks, removal of the prior vaginal portion of the mesh, and attachment of a new surgical mesh to either the sacrum or the sacral portion of the mesh.