Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Int Urogynecol J ; 35(6): 1155-1162, 2024 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38691124

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: It is reported that up to 60% of women would prefer to spare their uterus during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery. A reliable hysteropexy technique is therefore crucial. We aimed to describe the safety profile and initial core patient-reported and clinical outcomes of the Pilsner modification of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS) in comparison with the laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy technique (standard laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy [sLSH]) previously used in our unit. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary referral urogynecological center. All patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy between 1 January 2015, and 31 January 2022 were included in the study. Follow-up clinical, patient-reported, and imaging outcomes at the 12-month follow-up time point are presented. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included. Of these, 49 (56.3%) and 38 (43.7%) underwent sLSH and PiMMS respectively. Low numbers of perioperative complications were found in both groups with no mesh-related complications reported following PiMMS up to 12 months postoperatively. There were no apical compartment failures in either group. There were 8 (17.0%) vs 1 (2.7%) anterior compartment failures (Ba ≤ -1) in the sLSH and PiMMS groups respectively (p = 0.07) at 12 months. At the 1-year follow-up, 42 (89.4%) patients reported a Patient Global Impression of Improvement score of ≤ 2 in the sLSH groups compared with 35 (94.6%) patients following PiMMS. CONCLUSIONS: The PiMMS technique seems to have comparable safety profile and patient-reported outcomes with the sLSH technique. However, there is a trend toward reduced anterior compartment failures with this modification. The findings of this preliminary report need to be re-evaluated in a well-powered prospective study.


Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos em Ginecologia , Prolapso de Órgão Pélvico , Telas Cirúrgicas , Humanos , Feminino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Telas Cirúrgicas/efeitos adversos , Prolapso de Órgão Pélvico/cirurgia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos em Ginecologia/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Laparoscopia/métodos , Laparoscopia/efeitos adversos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA