Glue mesh fixation: Feasibility, tolerance and complication assessment. Results 24 months after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

Panel, P.; Soffray, F.; Roussillon, E.; Devins, C.; Brouziyne, Majid; Abramowicz, Shelly

doi:10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.02.013

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The studies took place in 11 countries ( Figure 2 ). France (17.8%) was the country with the most significant number of studies [ 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], followed by the United Kingdom (14.3%) [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ], Italy (14.3%) [ 7 , 22 , 23 , 24 ], Brazil (14.3%) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ], Holland (10.8%) [ 29 , 30 , 31 ], China (10.8%) [ 32 , 33 , 34 ], the United States of America (3.6%) [ 35 ], Germany (3.6%) [ 36 ], Spain (3.6%) [ 8 ], Denmark (3.6%) [ 37 ], and Iran (3.6%) [ 38 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We included 7 studies [ 7 , 8 , 13 , 22 , 23 , 35 , 36 ] that only involved laparoscopic treatment, 3 studies regarding transvaginal mesh treatment [ 17 , 33 , 34 ], and 18 mixed studies (mesh laparoscopic and vaginal mesh, vaginal mesh and native tissue, biologic xenograft and vaginal mesh, laparoscopic mesh and robotic mesh, and laparoscopic mesh and abdominal mesh) [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 37 , 38 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reintervention rate was reported in eighteen studies, with variations depending on the type of surgery (laparoscopic or vaginal) and the duration of the follow-up period [ 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 38 ]. At one year of follow-up for laparoscopic mesh surgery ( Table 5 ), the reintervention rate ranged from 0 to 9.8% [ 8 , 16 , 29 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 38 ]; at two years, it ranged from 6.7% to 9.52% [ 7 , 13 ]; at four years, it was 4.3% [ 14 ]; at seven years, it was 6.1% [ 18 ]; and at nine years, it was 22.7% [ 30 ]. For vaginal mesh surgery ( Table 6 ), the rate of reinterventions ranged from 0% to 10.9% at one year of follow-up [ 16 , 20 , 25 , 29 ]; at two years, it was 3% [ 28 ]; at four years, it was 5.8% [ 14 ]; and at seven years, it ranged from 13% to 17.2% [ 18 , 31 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Complications of Pelvic Prolapse Surgery Using Mesh: A Systematic Review

Dabica,

Balint,

Olaru

et al. 2024

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a public health problem that influences millions of women around the globe, and it has a significant impact on the quality of life. From the FDA statement regarding the complications of using mesh implants in POP surgery to studies that have shown the benefits and side effects, we conducted a systematic review investigating the complications associated with surgical mesh implantation for POP repair. Methods: Relevant studies were identified through a comprehensive search of scientific databases. Studies evaluating the use of mesh in POP surgery and reporting on associated complications were included. Results: Among 2816 studies, 28 studies met the research criteria, with a total number of 8958 patients, revealing that in laparoscopic mesh surgery, the rate of mesh exposure was lower compared to vaginal mesh surgery, among other complications. Conclusions: Laparoscopic mesh surgery is superior as a long-term approach for POP repair compared to vaginal mesh surgery, offering lower complication rates and potentially better anatomical success. However, vaginal mesh surgery remains a valuable option for patients who are unsuitable for laparoscopy due to specific factors. Future research should explore alternative techniques, like pectopexy with or without mesh, to further improve surgical outcomes and patient experience.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Complications of Pelvic Prolapse Surgery Using Mesh: A Systematic Review

Dabica,

Balint,

Olaru

et al. 2024

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study assessing outcomes in a series of patients undergoing nonrobotic S-LSC, and it also involves the largest sample of any study that examines S-LSC (robotic or conventional laparoscopy). Previously, 1 report had described a single case of S-LSC, and 2 studies have described robotic SILS for sacrocolpopexy, including 6 and 25 patients, respectively, with positive results for both case series [5,7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System was used to assess pelvic floor support and POP before surgery and 1 and 3 months after the operation [6]. The Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) was used to evaluate the influence of POP on patients' quality of life 3 months before and 3 months after S-LSC sacrocolpopexy [7]. The PFIQ-7 includes 3 scales (bladder/ urine, bowel/rectum, and vagina/pelvis), with higher total scores indicating a more severe impact of POP on quality of life.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-term Outcomes of Non-robotic Single-incision Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Surgical Technique

Liu

Kohn

et al. 2020

Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Objective: Our main purpose was to describe the surgical technique and short-term outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (S-LSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Design: This study consisted of a retrospective analysis of 49 consecutive cases. Setting: This study was set at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from October 2016 to November 2017. Patients: The population for this study consisted of women with stage II to IV POP who met eligibility criteria for laparoscopic surgery. Interventions: S-LSC included the use of V-loc barbed suture and retroperitoneal tunneling, in addition to standard singleincision laparoscopic surgery techniques. All 49 cases were successfully completed. All cases included concomitant procedures; 42 (85.7%) had removal of the uterus and adnexa. The main measured outcomes include patient characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and change in pelvic floor support (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System), and quality of life (Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire). Measurements and Main Results: All patients were parous, and 42.9% had a history of previous abdominal surgery. The mean operative duration from skin to skin was 201.20 § 46.53 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was 27.0 § 16.6 mL. The mean pre-and post-operative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System scores were 2.2 § 1.1 cm versus À 2.6 § 0.5 cm for the Aa point and 3.2 § 2.8 cm versus À4.6 § 0.8 cm for the C point (p <.05 for both). The mean pre-and post-operative Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire scores were 106.4 § 18.9 versus 8.9 § 4.26 (p <.05), suggesting that S-LSC significantly improved physical prolapse and quality of life. Four patients suffered from postoperative complications (3 mesh exposure and 1 lumbosacral pain). Six patients complained of new onset of stress urinary incontinence. Conclusions: Single-incision laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is a feasible method to manage POP. However, the long-term effects and complications need to be further investigated.

show abstract