肥胖与原生组织修复:OPTIMAL 试验的二次分析。

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.) Pub Date : 2024-03-26 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001498
Meghan K Hagedorn, Tonja M Locklear, Sarah Evans, Natalie E Karp, W Jerod Greer
{"title":"肥胖与原生组织修复:OPTIMAL 试验的二次分析。","authors":"Meghan K Hagedorn, Tonja M Locklear, Sarah Evans, Natalie E Karp, W Jerod Greer","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss (OPTIMAL) Trial compared sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) surgical outcomes. Increasing body mass index (BMI) is associated with an increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse, and the prevalence of obesity is increasing worldwide.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to better understand the effect of obesity on the results of native tissue vaginal apical suspension procedures.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This was a secondary analysis of the OPTIMAL Trial data set. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare surgical failure rates between SSLF and ULS across BMI subgroups after 2 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 75, 120, 63, and 39 patients in the normal, overweight, class 1 obesity, and class 2 obesity or greater BMI subgroups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in surgical failure rates between SSLF and ULS within BMI subgroups; however, failure rates increased in the ULS group between the nonobese and obese groups (normal, 35.9% SSLF vs 30.6% ULS [P = 0.81]; overweight, 38.6% vs 30.2% [P = 0.44]; class 1 obesity, 38.7% vs 40.6% [P = 0.92]; class 2 obesity or greater, 21.1% vs 45% [P = 0.21]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The risk of surgical failure between SSLF and ULS was not significant across BMI subgroups. Additional investigation is required to further elucidate whether SSLF or ULS is a more reliable option for obese patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Obesity and Native Tissue Repairs: A Secondary Analysis of the OPTIMAL Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Meghan K Hagedorn, Tonja M Locklear, Sarah Evans, Natalie E Karp, W Jerod Greer\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001498\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss (OPTIMAL) Trial compared sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) surgical outcomes. Increasing body mass index (BMI) is associated with an increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse, and the prevalence of obesity is increasing worldwide.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The purpose of this study was to better understand the effect of obesity on the results of native tissue vaginal apical suspension procedures.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>This was a secondary analysis of the OPTIMAL Trial data set. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare surgical failure rates between SSLF and ULS across BMI subgroups after 2 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 75, 120, 63, and 39 patients in the normal, overweight, class 1 obesity, and class 2 obesity or greater BMI subgroups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in surgical failure rates between SSLF and ULS within BMI subgroups; however, failure rates increased in the ULS group between the nonobese and obese groups (normal, 35.9% SSLF vs 30.6% ULS [P = 0.81]; overweight, 38.6% vs 30.2% [P = 0.44]; class 1 obesity, 38.7% vs 40.6% [P = 0.92]; class 2 obesity or greater, 21.1% vs 45% [P = 0.21]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The risk of surgical failure between SSLF and ULS was not significant across BMI subgroups. Additional investigation is required to further elucidate whether SSLF or ULS is a more reliable option for obese patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001498\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:骶棘韧带固定术(SSLF)与子宫骶骨韧带悬吊术(ULS)的手术效果比较。体重指数(BMI)的增加与盆腔器官脱垂风险的增加有关,而肥胖症的患病率在全球范围内都在增加:本研究旨在更好地了解肥胖对原生组织阴道顶端悬吊术结果的影响:研究设计:这是对OPTIMAL试验数据集的二次分析。进行了亚组分析,以比较2年后不同BMI亚组的SSLF和ULS手术失败率:正常、超重、1 级肥胖和 2 级肥胖或以上 BMI 亚组分别有 75、120、63 和 39 名患者。在 BMI 亚组别中,SSLF 和 ULS 的手术失败率无统计学差异;但在非肥胖组和肥胖组之间,ULS 组的失败率有所增加(正常,35.9% SSLF vs 30.6% ULS [P = 0.81];超重,38.6% vs 30.2% [P = 0.44];1 级肥胖,38.7% vs 40.6% [P = 0.92];2 级或以上肥胖,21.1% vs 45% [P=0.21]):结论:在不同的体重指数亚组中,SSLF 和 ULS 的手术失败风险差异不大。结论:SSLF 和 ULS 的手术失败风险在 BMI 亚组中并无显著差异,需要进一步研究,以进一步阐明 SSLF 或 ULS 对肥胖患者而言是否是更可靠的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Obesity and Native Tissue Repairs: A Secondary Analysis of the OPTIMAL Trial.

Importance: The Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss (OPTIMAL) Trial compared sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) surgical outcomes. Increasing body mass index (BMI) is associated with an increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse, and the prevalence of obesity is increasing worldwide.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to better understand the effect of obesity on the results of native tissue vaginal apical suspension procedures.

Study design: This was a secondary analysis of the OPTIMAL Trial data set. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare surgical failure rates between SSLF and ULS across BMI subgroups after 2 years.

Results: There were 75, 120, 63, and 39 patients in the normal, overweight, class 1 obesity, and class 2 obesity or greater BMI subgroups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in surgical failure rates between SSLF and ULS within BMI subgroups; however, failure rates increased in the ULS group between the nonobese and obese groups (normal, 35.9% SSLF vs 30.6% ULS [P = 0.81]; overweight, 38.6% vs 30.2% [P = 0.44]; class 1 obesity, 38.7% vs 40.6% [P = 0.92]; class 2 obesity or greater, 21.1% vs 45% [P = 0.21]).

Conclusions: The risk of surgical failure between SSLF and ULS was not significant across BMI subgroups. Additional investigation is required to further elucidate whether SSLF or ULS is a more reliable option for obese patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Development and Validation of a Simulation Model for Ureteral Stent Placement. Implementing a Digital Platform for Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections. Unexpected Pathology During Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in an Urban Population. Green Cystoscopy: Does Minimizing the Use of Drapes Increase Infection Rates? Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trial: KIM Sling With Reusable Trocars Versus TVT Exact Sling.
×
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