Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Language
Publication year range
1.
Int Braz J Urol ; 45(6): 1180-1185, 2019.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31808406

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term (5-10 years) outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical (MIS) kit insertion with Prolift® (non-absorbable) mesh compared to the use of Prolift M® (partially absorbable), for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective study we compared women undergoing MIS kit Prolift ® insertion (n=90) vs. Prolift M® insertion (n=79) for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair between 2006 and 2012 at our Institution. A number of 169 women fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. RESULTS: During the study period 128 women (76%) completed full follow-up; of them 58 (73%) following MIS kit Prolift® insertion, and 70 (88%) following MIS kit ProliftM® insertion. There was no signifi cant difference between the Prolift® and Prolift M® regarding parity (3.04 vs. 2.88, p=0.506), presence of hypertension (24.1% vs. 39.1%, p=0.088), diabetes mellitus (3.4% vs. 11.6%, p=0.109), or urinary stress incontinence (39.7% vs. 47.1%, p=0.475). All participants had been diagnosed with POP grade 3 or 4 before the procedure. No significant complications during the procedure or postoperative period were identified in the study groups. The follow-up period was at least five years in duration for both groups. Both groups were comparable according to questionnaires focused on function and satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing MIS kit Prolift® and Prolift M® insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair had comparable early and late postoperative outcomes. No differences in patient's function and satisfaction between the two groups were identified. According to our fi ndings, there is no superiority to either of the two studied mesh devices.


Subject(s)
Absorbable Implants , Surgical Mesh , Uterine Prolapse/surgery , Absorbable Implants/adverse effects , Aged , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Middle Aged , Patient Satisfaction , Pelvic Floor , Postoperative Complications , Retrospective Studies , Statistics, Nonparametric , Surgical Mesh/adverse effects , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Outcome , Uterine Prolapse/complications , Uterine Prolapse/physiopathology
2.
Int. braz. j. urol ; 45(6): 1180-1185, Nov.-Dec. 2019. tab
Article in English | LILACS | ID: biblio-1056331

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate long-term (5-10 years) outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical (MIS) kit insertion with Prolift® (non-absorbable) mesh compared to the use of Prolift M® (partially absorbable), for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair. Study design: In this retrospective study we compared women undergoing MIS kit Prolift® insertion (n=90) vs. Prolift M® insertion (n=79) for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair between 2006 and 2012 at our Institution. A number of 169 women fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Results: During the study period 128 women (76%) completed full follow-up; of them 58 (73%) following MIS kit Prolift® insertion, and 70 (88%) following MIS kit ProliftM® insertion. There was no significant difference between the Prolift® and Prolift M® regarding parity (3.04 vs. 2.88, p=0.506), presence of hypertension (24.1% vs. 39.1%, p=0.088), diabetes mellitus (3.4% vs. 11.6%, p=0.109), or urinary stress incontinence (39.7% vs. 47.1%, p=0.475). All participants had been diagnosed with POP grade 3 or 4 before the procedure. No significant complications during the procedure or postoperative period were identified in the study groups. The follow-up period was at least five years in duration for both groups. Both groups were comparable according to questionnaires focused on function and satisfaction. Conclusion: Patients undergoing MIS kit Prolift® and Prolift M® insertion for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair had comparable early and late postoperative outcomes. No differences in patient's function and satisfaction between the two groups were identified. According to our findings, there is no superiority to either of the two studied mesh devices.


Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Aged , Surgical Mesh/adverse effects , Uterine Prolapse/surgery , Absorbable Implants/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications , Surveys and Questionnaires , Retrospective Studies , Follow-Up Studies , Uterine Prolapse/complications , Uterine Prolapse/physiopathology , Treatment Outcome , Patient Satisfaction , Pelvic Floor , Statistics, Nonparametric , Middle Aged
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL