Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse

Marcickiewicz, Janusz; Kjøllesdal, Møyfrid; Engh, Marie Ellstrøm; Eklind, Saskia; Axén, C.; Brännström, Mats; Stjerndahl, Jan Henrik

doi:10.1080/00016340701332811

Cited by 29 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One cohort study showed similar anterior and apical outcomes, but more posterior wall recurrences after LSC compared to SSLF (17% vs. 0, p < 0.01). (30) In summary, moderate quality data favors mesh sacrocolpopexy over native tissue vaginal apex repairs in providing anatomic success. This is particularly evident for the anterior and apical compartments.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In their retrospective cohort study,(30) Marcickiwicz et al reported more reoperations for recurrent prolapse in those receiving LSC compared to SSLF [15/60 (25%) vs. 4/51 (8%), p=0.02], though seven of the 15 LSC recurrences were early in the learning curve. Finally, Thompson et al reported on all-cause reoperation in their retrospective cohort study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(24, 26, 27, 29, 30) There were differences in outcome reporting and operative techniques that precluded pooling and meta-analysis of data. There were highly inconsistent results from RCTs regarding which technique resulted in fewer reoperations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mesh Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Native Tissue Vaginal Repair

Siddiqui

Grimes

Casiano

et al. 2015

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To systematically review outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs in women with apical prolapse. Data Sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 4, 2012. Methods of Study Selection For anatomic and functional analyses, we included studies comparing mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repairs with at least 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome was anatomic “success” after surgery. Secondary outcomes were reoperation and symptom outcomes. We included large case series and comparative studies with shorter follow-up to increase power for adverse event analyses. Tabulation, Integration, and Results Evidence quality was assessed with the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Meta-analyses were performed when at least three studies reported the same outcome. We included 13 comparative studies for anatomic success, reoperation, and symptom outcomes. Moderate-quality evidence supports improved anatomic outcomes after mesh sacrocolpopexy; very low–quality evidence shows no differences in reoperation between sacrocolpopexy and native tissue vaginal repairs. Evidence was insufficient regarding which procedures result in improved bladder or bowel symptoms. Low-quality evidence showed no differences in postoperative sexual function. Adverse event data were compiled and meta-analyzed from 79 studies. When including larger noncomparative studies, ileus or small bowel obstruction (2.7% vs. 0.2%, p < 0.01), mesh or suture complications (4.2% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.01), and thromboembolic phenomena (0.6% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.03) were more common after mesh sacrocolpopexy compared to native tissue vaginal repairs. Conclusion When anatomic durability is a priority, we suggest that mesh sacrocolpopexy may be the preferred surgical option. When minimizing adverse events or reoperation is the priority, there is no strong evidence supporting one approach over the other.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mesh Sacrocolpopexy Compared With Native Tissue Vaginal Repair

Siddiqui

Grimes

Casiano

et al. 2015

Obstetrics &Amp; Gynecology

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mais les urologues ne maîtrisant pas, pour la plupart, la voie vaginale pouvaient ainsi offrir à leurs patientes une technique de cure de prolapsus ayant une morbidité moins importante que la promontofixation par laparotomie et une durée moyenne de séjour identique à la voie vaginale [9,10].…”

Section: Situationunclassified

“…Cheret et al [8] en 2001 montraient que la durée moyenne des promontofixations par coelioscopie était de 170 minutes et que cette durée ne diminuait pas significativement entre les 11 premières patientes et les 11 dernières patientes (sur 44 patientes). En 2007, Marcickiewicz et al [10] notaient un temps opératoire deux fois plus long pour la voie coelioscopique (129 minutes) par rapport à la voie vaginale avec un même taux de succès sur le traitement du prolapsus. La longue courbe d'apprentissage et la durée moyenne des interventions sont-ils des arguments suffisants pour que nous ne réalisions pas de coelioscopies dites « complexes » ?…”

Section: Réticences Des Gynécologuesunclassified