Vaginal‐assisted laparoscopic sacrohysterocervicopexy with retroperitoneal tunneling

Tapisiz, Omer Lutfi; Doğan, Ali; Altınbaş, Şadıman Kıykaç

doi:10.1002/ijgo.12339

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For these patients, we chose a single laparoscopic operation instead of a transvaginal operation. In Tapisiz et al’s study, a case who received VALS with retroperitoneal tunneling was introduced [ 18 ]. They summarized this operation in their review and concluded that patients who desired uterine preservation preferred this method to achieve better efficacy and shorter operative time [ 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of stage III–IV pelvic organ prolapse

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (VALS) refers to the placement of synthetic meshes through the vagina in addition to traditional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. In this study, we aimed to investigate the medium- to long-term efficacy and safety of VALS for treating stage III–IV pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods The study was designed as a case series at a single center. Patients with stage III–IV POP in our hospital from January 2010 to December 2018 were included. Perioperative parameters, objective and subjective outcomes, and complications were assessed. Results A total of 106 patients completed the follow-up and were included in our study. Within a median follow-up duration of 35.4 months, the objective cure ratio of VALS reached 92.45% (98/106), and the subjective success rate was 99.06% (105/106). Patients reported significant improvements in subjective symptoms. In eight patients suffering anatomic prolapse recurrence, two posterior POP cases were treated by posterior pelvic reconstruction surgery, while six anterior POP cases did not need surgical therapies. The reoperation rate was 1.89% (2/106). No intraoperative complications occurred. Three patients (2.83%) had postoperative fever, and one (0.94%) had wound infection during hospitalization. Six patients (5.66%) had mesh exposure on the vaginal wall, and de novo urinary incontinence occurred in two patients (1.89%) during the follow-up period. Conclusion VALS is an effective and safe surgical method for treating severe POP. Therefore, VALS should be considered in the treatment of severe POP due to its favorable subjective and objective outcomes, relatively low rate of infection and acceptable rate of mesh exposure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of stage III–IV pelvic organ prolapse

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6,7 The determination of an optimal treatment plan for cervical carcinoma has been difficult because of disputes about LARVH and ARH. 8,9 ARH is one of the longest-term methods, but it seems to have been linked to a greater incidence, for example, of bladder dysfunction, prolonged hospitalization and post-op infections, as demonstrated by the majority of retrospective studies. [10][11][12] Furthermore, the results of those reviews were comparable among ARH and LARVH, resulting in broad acceptance of LARVH as a standard treatment for early stage cervical cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of laparoscopic‐assisted transvaginal hysterectomy on wound complications in patients with early stage cervical cancer: A meta‐analysis

Zhang,

Zhou,

et al. 2023

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laparoscopic‐assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy (LARVH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) have been widely applied to treat cervical carcinoma. But LARVH and ARH have not been fully investigated in treating cervical carcinoma after injury associated with injury. This research is intended to provide an up‐to‐date basis for comparing LARVH with ARH in early stage cervical carcinoma. Comparison between LARVH and ARH in cervical carcinoma was carried out through a combination of related research. Eligible articles from databases such as PubMed and Embase were screened using an established search strategy. This report covered the results of LARVH versus ARH in cervical carcinoma. The average difference and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for the combination of consecutive variables. The combination of categorical variables was performed with the odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval. Through the identification of 1137 publications, eight of them were chosen to be analysed. Among them, 363 were treated with LARVH and 326 were treated with ARH. Eight trials showed that LARVH was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative wound infection than ARH (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.1–0.55, p = 0.0009). Five trials showed that there was no difference in the risk of postoperative bleeding after surgery (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.42–3.29, p = 0.76). We also did not differ significantly in the duration of the surgery (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, −6.58 to 10.15, p = 0.68). So, the two surgical methods differ significantly only in the risk of postoperative wound infection.

show abstract

“…With improvements in laparoscopic techniques, in the late 1980s, laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) was developed for treating cervical cancer [6,7]. Owing to the controversial clinical efficacies of LARVH and ARH, determining the better treatment option for cervical cancer is challenging [8,9]. Several studies have investigated the value of LARVH and ARH to determine the better choice for treating cervical cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All comparisons between LARVH and ARH for treating early stage cervical cancers mostly focused on blood loss, hospital stay, recovery, cosmetic results, and oncologic outcomes. However, the clinical application of LARVH versus ARH in treating cervical cancer remains controversial [8,9]. The application of laparoscopic procedures in oncologic surgery has many advantages, including short hospital stay and less blood loss during the preoperative period [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for treating cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.

Zeng¹,

Liu²,

Lv³

et al. 2021

Videosurgery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) are commonly used for cervical cancer treatment. However, the clinical application of LARVH versus ARH in treating cervical cancer remains controversial. Aim: To investigate the efficacy of LARVH versus ARH in treating cervical cancer via comparing several inductors by pooling related studies. Material and methods: Eligible articles from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were screened using established search terms. Consecutive variables were pooled using weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Categorical variables were pooled using odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI.

show abstract

Vaginal‐assisted laparoscopic sacrohysterocervicopexy with retroperitoneal tunneling

Abstract: Vaginal‐assisted laparoscopic sacrohysterocervicopexy, performed with retroperitoneal tunneling, was an effective alternative uterine‐preserving treatment for uterine prolapse.

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of stage III–IV pelvic organ prolapse

Medium- to long-term outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of stage III–IV pelvic organ prolapse

Effect of laparoscopic‐assisted transvaginal hysterectomy on wound complications in patients with early stage cervical cancer: A meta‐analysis

Evaluation of the efficacy of laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for treating cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About