Journals / İzmir Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 3

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy operation in the treatment of apical vaginal prolapse, single center data

Apikal vajinal prolapsus tedavisinde laparoskopik sakrokolpopeksi operasyonu, tek merkez verisi

Pages
215–219
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The overall complication rate was 14.2% and no patient required reoperation with the indication of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse during follow-up period.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We aimed to share intraoperative and postoperative results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy surgery we performed for pelvic organ prolapse.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: Demographic data such as age, body mass index, parity, past operations and operative data such as duration of operation, intraoperative complications, management type of these complications, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were analyzed in 21 patients who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy between January 2016 and December 2017.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The overall complication rate was 14.2% and no patient required reoperation with the indication of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse during follow-up period.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to share intraoperative and postoperative results of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy surgery we performed for pelvic organ prolapse. Methods: Demographic data such as age, body mass index, parity, past operations and operative data such as duration of operation, intraoperative complications, management type of these complications, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay were analyzed in 21 patients who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy between January 2016 and December 2017. Results: The mean age of the patients included in the study was 54.3±2.43 years, the mean parity was 3 (1-6) and the most frequently experienced previous surgical operation was cesarean section. In the preoperative examination 8 (38%) patients had POP Stage II, III (n=11; 52.3%) and IV (n=2; 9.5%) disease. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (TLH/ BSO) were applied to the eleven (52.3%) patients and the operative period was 138±23.9 min and TLH/LSC was applied to five patients (23.8%) and the operative time was 136±38.1 min. The operative time of only LSC patients was calculated as 58±26.7 min. The overall complication rate was 14.2% and no patient required reoperation with the indication of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse during follow-up period. Conclusion: Known advantages of laparoscopy include fewer blood loss, shorter hospital stay, fewer wound infections. Operative and postoperative data of the patients included in the study were consistent with the literature. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse may be offered as a good option.

Özet

Amaç: Pelvik organ prolapsusu için uyguladığımız laparoskopik sakrokolpopeksi ameliyatının intraoperatif ve postoperatif sonuçlarını paylaşmayı amaçladık. Yöntem: Çalışmaya Ocak 2016 ile Aralık 2017 arasında laparoskopik sakrokolpopeksi uygulanmış 21 hasta, yaş, beden kitle endeksi, parite, geçirilmiş ameliyatlar gibi demografik veriler ve ameliyat süresi, intraoperatif komplikasyonlar, bu komplikasyonların yönetim şekli, tahmini kan kaybı, hastanede kalış süresi gibi operatif verileri incelendi. Bulgular: Çalışmaya dahil edilen hastaların yaş ortalaması 54,3±2,43, paritesi ortalama 3 (1-6) ve en sık geçirilmiş cerrahi sezaryen idi. Preoperatif muayenede hastaların 8’inde (%38) POP evre II, 11’inde (%52,3) evre III ve 2’sinde (%9,5) evre IV’tü. On bir (%52,3) hastaya total laparoskopik histerektomi ve bilateral salpingo-ooferektomi (TLH/BSO) ile birlikte laparoskopik sakrokolpopeksi (LSC) uygulanırken ameliyat süresi 138±23,9 dk., beş (%23,8) hastaya TLH/LSC uygulandı ve ameliyat süresi 136±38,1 dk. idi. Yalnızca LSC uygulanan hastaların ameliyat süreleri ise 58±26,7 dk olarak hesaplandı. Toplam komplikasyon oranı %14,2 iken, takip süresince semptomatik pelvik organ prolapsusu nedeni ile reoperasyon gereken hasta olmadı. Sonuç: Laparoskopinin bilinen avantajları arasında daha az kan kaybı, daha az hastanede kalış süresi, daha az yara enfeksiyon oranları sayılabilir. Çalışmaya dahil edilen hastaların operatif ve postoperatif verileri literatür ile uyumlu idi. Pelvik organ prolapsusu için ameliyat önerilen hastalara laparoskopik sakrokolpopeksi iyi bir seçenek olarak sunulabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BUDAK, A., İNAN, A. H. (2018). Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy operation in the treatment of apical vaginal prolapse, single center data. İzmir Tepecik Eğitim Hastanesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 3, 215–219. https://ajindex.com/articles/199901

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. McDermott CD, and Hale DS. Abdominal, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2009;36(3):585-614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2009.09.004
  2. Lane FE, Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 1962 Jul;20:72-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-196207000-00009
  3. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly AM, Cundiff G, Weber AM, and Zyczynski H. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07
  4. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, Carabaneanu A, Coccia EM, Mecacci F, and Scarselli G. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med. 1999 Aug;44(8):679-84.
  5. Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS, Wang L, Bunker CH, and Lowder JL. Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979–2006. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010 May;202(5):501.e1-501.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.017
  6. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, and Funk MJ. Lifetime risk of stress incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. 2015;123(6):1201-06.
  7. Woodruff AJ, Roth CC, and Winters JC. Abdominal sacral colpopexy: Surgical pearls and outcomes,” Current Urology Reports. 2007 Sep;8(5):399-404.
  8. Vergeldt TFM, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, and Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Nov;26(11):1559- 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8
  9. Blandon RE, Bharucha AE, Melton LJ, Schleck CD, Babalola EO, Zinsmeister AR, and Gebhart JB.Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: A population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Dec;197(6):664.e1-664. e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.064 Corton MM. Anatomy of the pelvis: How the pelvis is built for support. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48(3):611-26. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.grf.0000170578.24583.64
  10. C. H. Nezhat, F. Nezhat, and C. Nezhat. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Nov;84(5):885-8. Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, van der Heijden TPFM, Stokmans RA, Mol BWJ, and Bongers MY. A Comparison of Complications between Open Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for the Treatment of Vault Prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013, p. 528636. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/528636
  11. Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, Nihira MA, Leffler K, and Bent AE. Correlation of symptom