使用锚定与缝合捕获装置固定骶棘韧带:一项前瞻性队列研究

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134
C. McKenzie, Christopher L. Crafton, A. Plair, C. Matthews
{"title":"使用锚定与缝合捕获装置固定骶棘韧带:一项前瞻性队列研究","authors":"C. McKenzie, Christopher L. Crafton, A. Plair, C. Matthews","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The aim of the study was to compare rates of persistent gluteal and posterior thigh pain, procedural efficacy, and postoperative complications at 1 year after sacrospinous ligament fixation using either an anchor-based or suture-capturing device. Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated outcomes 1 year after operation in patients previously enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing an anchor-based versus suture-capturing device for sacrospinous fixation. Symptom scores were evaluated via Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7. Pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale. Composite surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen or C-point greater than one half down the vagina, vaginal bulge symptoms, or a need for prolapse retreatment via surgery or pessary management. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed. Results Forty three (21 anchors, 22 sutures) of the original 47 patients (91%) returned for follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 15.4 months, age was 69 years old, body mass index was 30, and preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage was 2.7. No patients reported significant increase in pain at sacrospinous fixation site above baseline, and there was no significant difference in posterior thigh or gluteal pain on the side of fixation compared with baseline in the anchor-based or suture-capture groups (−0.2 ± 0.9 and −0.5 ± 1.6, respectively, P = 0.719). Two patients demonstrated surgical failure (anchor group) due to bulge symptoms (P = 0.233). The devices similarly improved Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (−71.0 ± 45.5 vs −66.3 ± 64.4, P = 0.652) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 (−40.6 ± 62.4 vs −26.4 ± 65.7, P = 0.768) scores. Conclusions Persistent gluteal or posterior thigh pain and surgical failure is uncommon 12 months after sacrospinous fixation and was not associated with the type of fixation device.","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"28 1","pages":"131 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using an Anchor Versus Suture-Capturing Device: A Prospective Cohort Study\",\"authors\":\"C. McKenzie, Christopher L. Crafton, A. Plair, C. Matthews\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective The aim of the study was to compare rates of persistent gluteal and posterior thigh pain, procedural efficacy, and postoperative complications at 1 year after sacrospinous ligament fixation using either an anchor-based or suture-capturing device. Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated outcomes 1 year after operation in patients previously enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing an anchor-based versus suture-capturing device for sacrospinous fixation. Symptom scores were evaluated via Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7. Pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale. Composite surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen or C-point greater than one half down the vagina, vaginal bulge symptoms, or a need for prolapse retreatment via surgery or pessary management. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed. Results Forty three (21 anchors, 22 sutures) of the original 47 patients (91%) returned for follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 15.4 months, age was 69 years old, body mass index was 30, and preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage was 2.7. No patients reported significant increase in pain at sacrospinous fixation site above baseline, and there was no significant difference in posterior thigh or gluteal pain on the side of fixation compared with baseline in the anchor-based or suture-capture groups (−0.2 ± 0.9 and −0.5 ± 1.6, respectively, P = 0.719). Two patients demonstrated surgical failure (anchor group) due to bulge symptoms (P = 0.233). The devices similarly improved Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (−71.0 ± 45.5 vs −66.3 ± 64.4, P = 0.652) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 (−40.6 ± 62.4 vs −26.4 ± 65.7, P = 0.768) scores. Conclusions Persistent gluteal or posterior thigh pain and surgical failure is uncommon 12 months after sacrospinous fixation and was not associated with the type of fixation device.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"131 - 135\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001134","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究的目的是比较使用锚定器或缝线捕获器固定骶棘韧带后1年持续性臀肌和大腿后侧疼痛的发生率、手术疗效和术后并发症。方法这项前瞻性队列研究评估了先前参加随机对照试验的患者术后1年的结果,该试验比较了基于锚钉和缝线的骶棘固定装置。症状评分通过盆底疼痛量表20和盆底影响问卷7进行评估。疼痛使用数字评定量表进行评估。复合性手术失败被定义为超过处女膜或C点超过阴道一半的脱垂、阴道隆起症状,或需要通过手术或子宫托管理进行脱垂再治疗。进行描述性和双变量统计。结果原47例患者中43例(21个锚钉,22个缝线)(91%)返回随访。平均随访时间15.4个月,年龄69岁,体重指数30,术前盆腔器官脱垂定量分期2.7。没有患者报告骶棘固定部位的疼痛在基线以上显著增加,与基线相比,锚定组或缝线捕获组固定侧的大腿后侧或臀肌疼痛没有显著差异(分别为-0.2±0.9和-0.5±1.6,P=0.719)。两名患者(锚定组)因隆起症状而出现手术失败(P=0.233)(−71.0±45.5 vs−66.3±64.4,P=0.652)和盆底影响问卷7(−40.6±62.4 vs−26.4±65.7,P=0.768)得分。结论骶棘固定术后12个月,持续性臀肌或股后疼痛和手术失败并不常见,与固定装置的类型无关。
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
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using an Anchor Versus Suture-Capturing Device: A Prospective Cohort Study
Objective The aim of the study was to compare rates of persistent gluteal and posterior thigh pain, procedural efficacy, and postoperative complications at 1 year after sacrospinous ligament fixation using either an anchor-based or suture-capturing device. Methods This prospective cohort study evaluated outcomes 1 year after operation in patients previously enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing an anchor-based versus suture-capturing device for sacrospinous fixation. Symptom scores were evaluated via Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7. Pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale. Composite surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen or C-point greater than one half down the vagina, vaginal bulge symptoms, or a need for prolapse retreatment via surgery or pessary management. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed. Results Forty three (21 anchors, 22 sutures) of the original 47 patients (91%) returned for follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 15.4 months, age was 69 years old, body mass index was 30, and preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage was 2.7. No patients reported significant increase in pain at sacrospinous fixation site above baseline, and there was no significant difference in posterior thigh or gluteal pain on the side of fixation compared with baseline in the anchor-based or suture-capture groups (−0.2 ± 0.9 and −0.5 ± 1.6, respectively, P = 0.719). Two patients demonstrated surgical failure (anchor group) due to bulge symptoms (P = 0.233). The devices similarly improved Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (−71.0 ± 45.5 vs −66.3 ± 64.4, P = 0.652) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 (−40.6 ± 62.4 vs −26.4 ± 65.7, P = 0.768) scores. Conclusions Persistent gluteal or posterior thigh pain and surgical failure is uncommon 12 months after sacrospinous fixation and was not associated with the type of fixation device.
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
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
228
期刊介绍: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
AUGS-PERFORM: A New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Assess Quality of Prolapse Care. Factors Associated With a Positive Urine Culture in Women Seeking Urogynecologic Care for Urinary Tract Infection Symptoms. Complications Reported to the Food and Drug Administration: A Cross-sectional Comparison of Urogynecologic Meshes. The Role of Pessaries in the Treatment of Women With Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Impact of Methenamine Hippurate Treatment on Urothelial Integrity and Bladder Inflammation in Aged Female Mice and Women With Urinary Tract Infections.
×
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