Anorectal symptoms before and after laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy for pelvic organ prolapse

Ramanah, R.; Ballester, Marcos; Chéreau, E.; Bui, Charles; Rouzier, Roman; Daraı̈, Émile

doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1657-z

Cited by 14 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…So the colorectal symptoms could not be significantly improved. Ramanah [ 22 ] recommended that vaginal perineorrhaphy instead of posterior repair with mesh could be advocated and the patient should be informed of the potential risk of de novo anorectal symptoms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study

Sima

et al. 2022

BMC Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years. Results 89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 ± 7.46 vs 41.81 ± 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 ± 0.90 vs 3.74 ± 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 ± 0.75 vs 7.21 ± 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (− 6.83 ± 0.54 vs − 6.39 ± 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups. Conclusion TS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse. Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study

Sima

et al. 2022

BMC Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In agreement with our results, Craaford et al [24] did not find improvement in digestive outcomes at 6 years after POP repair by the vaginal route. Moreover, Ramanah et al [25] showed a worse outcome in digestive function after POP repair even when performed by laparoscopy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety outcomes after genital prolapse repair by the vaginal route using the Avaulta Plus® mesh

Oliveira

Arfi

Bendifallah

et al. 2020

European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductiv

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Regardless of the surgical approach, the sacrocolpopexy was performed as previously described by Cosson et al 18,19 and Ramanah et al 20 . In patients without previous hysterectomy, the first step of the intervention consisted in executing complementary surgical procedures such as subtotal or total hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy

Lallemant

Grob

Puyraveau³

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence and morbidity between first and second line sacrocolpopexies. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all laparoscopic or robotic sacrocolpopexies for POP-Q stage ≥ 2, with or without a history of previous prolapse repair, performed with a similar technique between January 2012 and June 2019 in 3 European Gynecologic Surgery Departments. Patients were separated into two groups: first line sacrocolpopexy (FLS) and second line sacrocolpopexy (SLS). Each patient from the SLS group was age-matched with a patient from the FLS group. The primary outcome measure was reoperation procedures for recurrent POP defined as a symptomatic POP-Q stage ≥ 2 POP in at least one vaginal compartment. Secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative organ trauma, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative POP recurrence (operated on or not), global reoperation and mesh-related complications. During this period, 332 patients were included. After age-matching, 170 patients were analyzed: 85 patients in the FLS and SLS groups, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 3 years, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of recurrent POP (9.4% versus 10.6%, p = 0.7), recurrent POP reoperation (3.5% versus 5.9% p = 0.7), mesh-related reoperation (0% versus 2.4%, p = 0.5), global reoperation (3.5 versus 8.2%, p = 0.3), operative time (198 ± 67 min versus 193 ± 60 min, p = 0.5), intraoperative complications such as organ injury (4.7% versus 7.1%, p = 0.7) and blood loss > 500 mL (2.4% versus 0%, p = 0.5). Patients who underwent a first or a second line sacrocolpopexy seemed to have similar rates of prolapse recurrence and complications.

show abstract

Anorectal symptoms before and after laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy for pelvic organ prolapse

Abstract: Anorectal symptoms are not improved after POP surgery by laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy.

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study

Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study

Efficacy and safety outcomes after genital prolapse repair by the vaginal route using the Avaulta Plus® mesh

Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About