Clinical Efficacy of Modified Nonmesh Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Jinchai Zhao, Yibin Liu, Lili Cui, Xianghang Sun, Li Meng, Yi Zhao, Xiaoyuan Zhou, Xianghua Huang
{"title":"Clinical Efficacy of Modified Nonmesh Sacral Colpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse","authors":"Jinchai Zhao, Yibin Liu, Lili Cui, Xianghang Sun, Li Meng, Yi Zhao, Xiaoyuan Zhou, Xianghua Huang","doi":"10.1097/spv.0000000000001441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n As an increasing number of mesh-related complications have been reported, the availability of nonmesh alternatives becomes crucial for situations where mesh is not desired or unavailable. A new modified procedure of nonmesh laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) was performed in our department, which used a nonabsorbable polyester suture (Ethibond) combined with uterosacral ligament suspension.\n \n \n \n The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the modified procedure in comparison with traditional LSC in patients with pelvic organ prolapse.\n \n \n \n This retrospective study assessed the treatment outcomes of 60 patients who were underwent LSC with or without mesh from January 2017 to April 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of mesh during the operation: mesh group (n = 34) and nonmesh group (n = 26). General data, perioperative indexes, postoperative complications, and recurrence rates were comparatively analyzed between 2 groups.\n \n \n \n In perioperative indexes, the nonmesh group exhibited shorter operation time (P < 0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss compared with the mesh group (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in postoperative indwelling urinary catheter duration (P = 0.425) and hospitalization time (P = 0.827) between the 2 groups. In postoperative complications, the incidence of postoperative complications showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). No occurrences of mesh exposure and erosion were observed in the mesh group during at least a 2-year follow-up period. In postoperative recurrence, none of the patients in either group experienced prolapse recurrence.\n \n \n \n In comparison with the traditional LSC with mesh, the modified laparoscopic nonmesh sacral colpopexy presents advantages of reduced surgical trauma, less pain, and lower cost. However, a long-term and large sample study is required for evaluating the surgery’s long-term efficacy.\n","PeriodicalId":517282,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology","volume":"24 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000001441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As an increasing number of mesh-related complications have been reported, the availability of nonmesh alternatives becomes crucial for situations where mesh is not desired or unavailable. A new modified procedure of nonmesh laparoscopic sacral colpopexy (LSC) was performed in our department, which used a nonabsorbable polyester suture (Ethibond) combined with uterosacral ligament suspension. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the modified procedure in comparison with traditional LSC in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. This retrospective study assessed the treatment outcomes of 60 patients who were underwent LSC with or without mesh from January 2017 to April 2019. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of mesh during the operation: mesh group (n = 34) and nonmesh group (n = 26). General data, perioperative indexes, postoperative complications, and recurrence rates were comparatively analyzed between 2 groups. In perioperative indexes, the nonmesh group exhibited shorter operation time (P < 0.001) and less intraoperative blood loss compared with the mesh group (P = 0.004). There was no significant difference in postoperative indwelling urinary catheter duration (P = 0.425) and hospitalization time (P = 0.827) between the 2 groups. In postoperative complications, the incidence of postoperative complications showed no significant difference between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). No occurrences of mesh exposure and erosion were observed in the mesh group during at least a 2-year follow-up period. In postoperative recurrence, none of the patients in either group experienced prolapse recurrence. In comparison with the traditional LSC with mesh, the modified laparoscopic nonmesh sacral colpopexy presents advantages of reduced surgical trauma, less pain, and lower cost. However, a long-term and large sample study is required for evaluating the surgery’s long-term efficacy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改良非网膜骶骨结肠成形术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的临床疗效
随着网片相关并发症的报道越来越多,在不需要或没有网片的情况下,非网片替代品的可用性变得至关重要。我们科室开展了一种新的改良腹腔镜骶骨阴道成形术(LSC),使用非吸收性聚酯缝合线(Ethibond)结合子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术。 本研究旨在评估盆腔器官脱垂患者采用改良手术与传统 LSC 相比的临床疗效。 这项回顾性研究评估了2017年1月至2019年4月期间接受LSC术(带或不带网片)的60名患者的治疗效果。根据术中有无网片将患者分为两组:网片组(34 人)和无网片组(26 人)。对两组患者的一般数据、围手术期指标、术后并发症和复发率进行比较分析。 在围手术期指标方面,与网片组相比,非网片组的手术时间更短(P < 0.001),术中失血量更少(P = 0.004)。两组患者术后留置导尿管时间(P = 0.425)和住院时间(P = 0.827)无明显差异。在术后并发症方面,两组的术后并发症发生率无明显差异(P > 0.05)。在至少两年的随访期间,网片组未发现网片外露和侵蚀现象。在术后复发方面,两组患者均未出现脱垂复发。 与带网片的传统 LSC 相比,改良腹腔镜无网片骶骨阴道成形术具有手术创伤小、疼痛轻、费用低等优点。不过,要评估该手术的长期疗效,还需要进行长期、大样本的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Staged Versus Concomitant Stress Incontinence Procedures With Prolapse Repairs The Effect of a Physician Consultation on Patient Reported Outcomes in Urogynecology 16th EUGA Annual Congress 19-21 October 2023, Varese – Palais des Congrès Laser and Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Access to Urogynecologic Care in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Mystery Caller Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1