Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).

turkay, ünal; ozsurmeli, mehmet; SUKGEN, GÖKMEN

doi:10.17826/cumj.786078

Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).

Gökmen SUKGEN, (Şükgen Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniği, Adana, Türkiye)

Ünal Türkay, (Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Derince Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Kocaeli, Türkiye)

Mehmet Özsürmeli (Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, Derince Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Kocaeli, Türkiye)

Cukurova Medical Journal

0 0

Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 46 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 141 - 148 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.17826/cumj.786078 İndeks Tarihi: 30-06-2021

Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).

Öz:

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare theefficiency of laparoscopic and transvaginal meshoperations with conservative surgery of reproductive-agewomen with pelvic organ prolapse (stage≥2) (POP).Materials and Methods: In this study, we retrospectivelyevaluated 22 cases of 105 patients who diagnosed withsymptomatic POP-Q stage 2 and above pelvic prolapse,part of whom underwent laparoscopic surgery (Group-1)while the other part composed of those who underwenttransvaginal mesh (TVM) surgery (Group-2). Urogenitalprolapse Pelvic Organ was graded using POP-Q.As thecurrent TVM surgical kits four-arms mesh was used.Results: The mean age of the patients of both groups was42.2±11.4 and 38.3±12.8 years, respectively. The meanduration of hospitalization for the patients underwentlaparoscopy was 2.3 days (range:1-4 days), that period wasobserved as 3 days in Group-2 (range:2-4 days). None ofour patients had any adverse reactions in the early or latestages. The rate of success was 95.45% for patients whounderwent laparoscopic surgery, while it was 98.10% forthe group of TVM surgery.Conclusion: Transvaginal mesh surgery was found to bea relatively successful technique in pelvic organ prolapsesurgery owing to the high rate of success and minimal ratesof complications.

Anahtar Kelime:

Pelvik organ prolapsusu olan üreme çağındaki kadınların uterus koruyucu cerrahisinde laparoskopik ve transvajinal meş operasyonlarının etkinliğinin karşılaştırılması (evre ≥2)

Öz:

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, pelvik prolapsusu (POP) olan (evre≥2) üreme çağındaki kadınlarda laparoskopik ve transvajinal meş ameliyatlarının etkinliğini ile karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmada, semptomatik POP-Q evre 2 ve üzeri pelvik prolapsus tanısı alan laparoskopik cerrahi geçiren 22 hasta ile (Grup-1), transvajinal meş (TVM) uygulanan 83 olguyu (grup 2) retrospektif olarak değerlendirdik. Prolapsus Pelvik Organ POP-Q kullanılarak derecelendirildi. Mevcut TVM cerrahi kitleri olarak dört kollu mesh kullanıldı. Bulgular: Her iki gruptaki hastaların ortalama yaşı sırasıyla 42,2 ± 11,4 ve 38,3 ± 12,8 yıldı. Laparoskopi yapılan hastaların ortalama hastanede kalış süresi 2,3 gün (1-4 gün), bu süre Grup-2'de 3 gün (2-4 gün) olarak gözlendi. Hastalarımızın hiçbirinde erken veya geç dönemde herhangi bir yan etki görülmedi. Başarı oranı laparoskopik cerrahi uygulanan hastalarda% 95.45 iken TVM cerrahisi grubunda% 98.10 idi. Sonuç: Transvajinal meş cerrahisinin, yüksek başarı oranı ve minimal komplikasyon oranları nedeniyle pelvik organ prolaps cerrahisinde başarılı bir teknik olduğu gösterilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Constantini E, Porena M, Lazzeri M, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A. Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol. J. 2013;24:1481-7
2. El Haddad R, Svabik K, Masata J, Koleska T, Hubka P, Martan A. Women's quality of life and sexual function after transvaginal anterior repair with mesh insertion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;167:110-13.
3. Jarząbek-Bielecka G, Buks J, Witkowska J, Wilczak M, Pisarska-Krawczyk M, Kędzia W et al. Aging: Women sexual activity, pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Polski Przegląd Nauk o Zdrowiu. 2014;1:25-8.
4. Pattel MS, Mellen C, O’ Sullivan DM, Lassala CA. Pessary use and impact on quality of life and body image. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:298-301.
5. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Managing pelvic organ prolapse. In: Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women NICE guideline Draft. October 2018;24.
6. Zucchi A, Lazzeri M Porena M, Del Zingaro M, Costantini E. Uterus preservation in prolapse surgery. Nat Med. 2010;7:626–33.
7. Tola EN, Erdemoğlu E, Erdemoğlu E. Uterine sparing surgical methods in pelvic organ prolapse. Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;12:168–72.
8. Walter JE. Transvaginal mesh procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33:168– 74.
9. Rogo-Gupta L. Current trends in surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;25:395-8.
10. Acsinte OM, Rabischong B, Bourdel N, Canis M, Botchorishvili R. Laparoscopic promontofixation in 10 steps. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018;25:767.
11. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10-7.
12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-13.
13. Florin M and Florin Z. Laparoscopic Treatment of Inguinal Hernias. In Mihaileanu Florin and Florin Zaharie (Eds). Laparoscopic Treatment of Inguinal Hernias, Romania. 2018;1-35.
14. Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Schraffordt Koops SE. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2010;2:209-16.
15. Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1803-13.
16. Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack MC, Murray CJ, Milligan M, Schluter P. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinou s colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12:381- 84.
17. Gamble TL, Aschkenazi S, Nguyen A. Bilateral graftaugmented sacrospinous hysteropexy: 1-year anatomic and functional outcomes following surgery for uterine preservation. J Pelvic Med Surg. 2008;14, 275–79.
18. Detollenaere RJ, Boon Jd, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717.
19. Achtari C, Dwyer PL. Sexual function and pelvic floor disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;19:993–1008.
20. Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen T, Milsom I. Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after child birth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG. 2013;120:152-60.
21. Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M. Nonobstetric risk factors for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:1089-97.
22. Silva WA, Pauls RN, Segal JL, Uterosacral vault suspension: five-year outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:255-63.
23. Thakar R, Sultan AH Hysterectomy and pelvic organ dysfunction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;19: 403–18.
24. Neuman M, Lavy Y. Conservation of the prolapsed uterus is a valid option: medium term results of a prospective comparative study with the posterior intravaginal slingoplasty operation. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18: 889-93.
25. Lopes ED, Lemos NL, Carramao SS, Lunardelli JL, Ruano JM, Aoki T et al. Transvaginal polypropylene mesh versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:389–94.
26. Ağaçayak E, Tunç SY, İçen MS, Başaranoğlu S, Fındık MF, Sak S et al. Should we add unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation to vaginal hysterectomy in management of stage 3 and stage 4 pelvic organ prolapse? Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;12:144–50.

APA	SUKGEN G, turkay ü, ozsurmeli m (2021). Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. , 141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
Chicago	SUKGEN GÖKMEN,turkay ünal,ozsurmeli mehmet Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. (2021): 141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
MLA	SUKGEN GÖKMEN,turkay ünal,ozsurmeli mehmet Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. , 2021, ss.141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
AMA	SUKGEN G,turkay ü,ozsurmeli m Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. . 2021; 141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
Vancouver	SUKGEN G,turkay ü,ozsurmeli m Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. . 2021; 141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
IEEE	SUKGEN G,turkay ü,ozsurmeli m "Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).." , ss.141 - 148, 2021. 10.17826/cumj.786078
ISNAD	SUKGEN, GÖKMEN vd. "Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).". (2021), 141-148. https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.786078

APA	SUKGEN G, turkay ü, ozsurmeli m (2021). Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. Cukurova Medical Journal, 46(1), 141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
Chicago	SUKGEN GÖKMEN,turkay ünal,ozsurmeli mehmet Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. Cukurova Medical Journal 46, no.1 (2021): 141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
MLA	SUKGEN GÖKMEN,turkay ünal,ozsurmeli mehmet Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. Cukurova Medical Journal, vol.46, no.1, 2021, ss.141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
AMA	SUKGEN G,turkay ü,ozsurmeli m Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. Cukurova Medical Journal. 2021; 46(1): 141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
Vancouver	SUKGEN G,turkay ü,ozsurmeli m Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).. Cukurova Medical Journal. 2021; 46(1): 141 - 148. 10.17826/cumj.786078
IEEE	SUKGEN G,turkay ü,ozsurmeli m "Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).." Cukurova Medical Journal, 46, ss.141 - 148, 2021. 10.17826/cumj.786078
ISNAD	SUKGEN, GÖKMEN vd. "Comparison of effectiveness of laparoscopic and transvaginal mesh operations in uterus protective surgery of women in reproductive-age with pelvic organ prolapse (stage ≥2).". Cukurova Medical Journal 46/1 (2021), 141-148. https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.786078