子宫脱垂手术矫正的有效性:宫颈截除术加子宫骶骨韧带固定术(改良曼彻斯特)与阴道子宫切除术加子宫骶骨韧带高位固定术。

Tiny A de Boer, Alfredo L Milani, Kirsten B Kluivers, Mariella I J Withagen, Mark E Vierhout
{"title":"子宫脱垂手术矫正的有效性:宫颈截除术加子宫骶骨韧带固定术(改良曼彻斯特)与阴道子宫切除术加子宫骶骨韧带高位固定术。","authors":"Tiny A de Boer, Alfredo L Milani, Kirsten B Kluivers, Mariella I J Withagen, Mark E Vierhout","doi":"10.1007/s00192-009-0945-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The objective of this study is to evaluate cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) and compare it to vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication procedure with special regard to the middle compartment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive women with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent either vaginal hysterectomy or a modified Manchester procedure were included. Assessments were made preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up, including physical examination with pelvic organ prolapse quantification standardised questionnaires (incontinence impact questionnaire, urogenital distress inventory, and defaecatory distress inventory).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2002 and 2007, 156 patients were included. Ninety-eight patients returned for a 1-year follow-up. In the modified Manchester group, we found no middle compartment recurrence versus two (4%) in the vaginal hysterectomy group. Anterior and posterior compartment prolapse recurrences (stage >or=2) were similar (approximately 50%). Considering operating time and blood loss, modified Manchester was more favourable. There was no difference in the pre- and postoperative subjective scores. The overall functional outcome was acceptable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found an excellent performance of both procedures regarding middle compartment recurrences.</p>","PeriodicalId":73495,"journal":{"name":"International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction","volume":" ","pages":"1313-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/43/4f/192_2009_Article_945.PMC2762528.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication.\",\"authors\":\"Tiny A de Boer, Alfredo L Milani, Kirsten B Kluivers, Mariella I J Withagen, Mark E Vierhout\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00192-009-0945-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>The objective of this study is to evaluate cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) and compare it to vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication procedure with special regard to the middle compartment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive women with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent either vaginal hysterectomy or a modified Manchester procedure were included. Assessments were made preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up, including physical examination with pelvic organ prolapse quantification standardised questionnaires (incontinence impact questionnaire, urogenital distress inventory, and defaecatory distress inventory).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2002 and 2007, 156 patients were included. Ninety-eight patients returned for a 1-year follow-up. In the modified Manchester group, we found no middle compartment recurrence versus two (4%) in the vaginal hysterectomy group. Anterior and posterior compartment prolapse recurrences (stage >or=2) were similar (approximately 50%). Considering operating time and blood loss, modified Manchester was more favourable. There was no difference in the pre- and postoperative subjective scores. The overall functional outcome was acceptable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found an excellent performance of both procedures regarding middle compartment recurrences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73495,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1313-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/43/4f/192_2009_Article_945.PMC2762528.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0945-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2009/8/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0945-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2009/8/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言和假设:本研究的目的是评估宫颈截除术与子宫骶骨韧带成形术(改良曼彻斯特术),并将其与阴道子宫切除术与高位子宫骶骨韧带成形术进行比较,特别是在中间腔室方面:方法:纳入连续接受阴式子宫切除术或改良曼彻斯特手术的盆腔器官脱垂妇女。术前和随访 1 年时进行评估,包括体格检查和盆腔器官脱垂定量标准化问卷调查(尿失禁影响问卷、泌尿生殖系统痛苦清单和排便痛苦清单):结果:2002 年至 2007 年间,共纳入 156 名患者。98 名患者返回进行了为期 1 年的随访。在改良曼彻斯特手术组中,我们没有发现中隔复发,而在阴道子宫切除术组中则有两例(4%)。前室和后室脱垂复发率(>或=2期)相似(约50%)。考虑到手术时间和失血量,改良曼彻斯特术更为有利。术前和术后的主观评分没有差异。总体功能结果可以接受:我们发现这两种手术对中隔复发的治疗效果都很好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication.

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective of this study is to evaluate cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) and compare it to vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication procedure with special regard to the middle compartment.

Methods: Consecutive women with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent either vaginal hysterectomy or a modified Manchester procedure were included. Assessments were made preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up, including physical examination with pelvic organ prolapse quantification standardised questionnaires (incontinence impact questionnaire, urogenital distress inventory, and defaecatory distress inventory).

Results: Between 2002 and 2007, 156 patients were included. Ninety-eight patients returned for a 1-year follow-up. In the modified Manchester group, we found no middle compartment recurrence versus two (4%) in the vaginal hysterectomy group. Anterior and posterior compartment prolapse recurrences (stage >or=2) were similar (approximately 50%). Considering operating time and blood loss, modified Manchester was more favourable. There was no difference in the pre- and postoperative subjective scores. The overall functional outcome was acceptable.

Conclusions: We found an excellent performance of both procedures regarding middle compartment recurrences.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Overactive bladder: a new paradigm. Case of longitudinal vaginal septum with pelvic organ prolapse. Fistulization between ectopic ureteral stump and uterus following nephroureterectomy: case report. Accidental introduction of a contraceptive vaginal ring into the urinary bladder. Vesical endometriosis following the menopause.
×
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