An update on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

McIntyre, Matthew; Goudelocke, Colin

doi:10.1097/mou.0b013e32833e4c94

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The wide variety of open and laparoscopic surgical approaches used to treat POP represented the complexity of managing this medical condition. 3,8 Irrespective of the route or repair chosen by the surgeon, a sound surgical judgment, complete understanding of the pelvic anatomy and the mechanisms involved in POP, and expertise in pelvic surgery are required if successful outcomes are to be expected. 9 Recently, Cavadas et al evaluated the way in which the quality of randomized controlled studies (RCT) for the treatment of POP has evolved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic promontofixation for pelvic organ prolapse: A 10‐year single center experience in a series of 501 patients

Bacle

Papatsoris²,

Bigot

et al. 2011

Int J of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:To assess the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic promontofixation (LP) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: A total of 501 consecutive patients with POP were included in this prospective study. The patients' mean age was 63.23 (36-90) years, their mean body mass index was 25.14 (15-36) and their mean number of deliveries was 3.3 (0-14). A POP grade Ն3 was diagnosed in 70.4% of the patients and 38.9% of them had a history of abdominal surgery. The patients underwent a Bonney test and urodynamic study. In cases of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), the patients underwent the simultaneous insertion of a tension-free vaginal tape. A prolapse quality of life questionnaire was sent to all patients. Results: The mean operative time was 97.4 min (50-210) and there were 1.7% cases of intra-operative complications. The mean hospitalization time was 3.7 days (1-13 days). During the mean follow-up of 20.7 months (3-120), 91 (17.8%) complications were recorded , including constipation (5.5%), SUI (3.5%), vaginal erosion (2.4%), and urge incontinence (2%). Recurrences were recorded in 11.5% of the patients within an average time of 37.2 months. Risk factors for recurrence were the use of the polypropylene mesh compared with the polyester mesh (P < 0.0001), an intra-operative hysterectomy (P = 0.02), and bleeding (P = 0.049). There was a statistical significant (P < 0.001) improvement in most of the symptoms in the prolapse quality of life questionnaire. Conclusions: LP is safe with effective long-term results, with low recurrence and morbidity rates, and a good quality of life.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic promontofixation for pelvic organ prolapse: A 10‐year single center experience in a series of 501 patients

Bacle

Papatsoris²,

Bigot

et al. 2011

Int J of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anchoring a polypropylene mesh to the tendinous arch of the levator ani to repair apical prolapse and to the origin of the uterosacral ligaments and the lateral vaginal fornix to repair uterine prolapse is an innovative vaginal technique that is less invasive than some other traditional methods [1][2][3]10]. The benefits may include a shorter operating time, shorter time to return to activities of daily living, and decreased cost when this procedure is compared with an abdominal approach by laparotomy or laparoscopy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%