• Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi · Feb 2011

    Comparative Study

    [Comparison outcomes of three surgical procedures in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse and analysis of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence].

    • Chang-dong Hu, Yi-song Chen, Xiao-fang Yi, Jing-xin Ding, Wei-wei Feng, Liang-qing Yao, Jian Huang, Ying Zhang, Wei-guo Hu, Zhi-ling Zhu, and Ke-qin Hua.
    • Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai 200011, China.
    • Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2011 Feb 1;46(2):94-100.

    ObjectiveTo investigate clinical significance and application of modified pelvic floor reconstruction developed by Peking Union Medical College Hospital (MPFR) in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP) by comparing the effectiveness, quality of postoperative sexual life, life satisfaction and risk factors for POP recurrence with the following two surgical procedures: traditional total vaginal hysterectomy with anterior-posterior colporrhaphy (TVH-APC) and total vaginal hysterectomy with lateral colporrhaphy and sacrospinous ligament fixation and vaginal bridge repair and episiotomy (TVH-LC-SSLF-VBR-EP).MethodsTotally 173 patients with severe POP and at least two compartments defects of pelvic floor underwent surgeries in the study, 86 patients (group A) were treated by MPFR with polypropylene mesh application, 58 (group B) were treated by TVH-APC, and 29 patients (group C) were treated by TVH-LC-SSLF-VBR-EP. Peri-operative data and outcomes of postoperative courses at 6, 12, 18 months were collected and analyzed, in the meantime, the risk factors of recurrence were studied.Results(1) No statistical difference was observed among the above 3 groups in terms of length of operation, amount of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and morbidity after surgery (P > 0.05). (2) Cost hospitalization was (11 448 ± 3049) Yuan in group A, which was significantly higher than (7262 ± 1607) Yuan in group B and (7140 ± 1817) Yuan in group C (P < 0.05). (3) The length of vaginal cuff of (7.5 ± 1.4) cm in group A and (5.6 ± 1.1) cm in group C were significantly longer than (7.1 ± 0.6) cm in group B (P < 0.05). The width of vaginal cuff of (4.3 ± 0.3) cm in group A was larger than (3.4 ± 0.3) cm in group B and (3.3 ± 0.4) cm in group C (P < 0.05). (4) The recurrence rate at 12 months after surgery was 12.8% (11/86) in group A, which was similar with 17.2% (5/29) in group C (P > 0.05) and significantly less than 36.2% (21/58) in group B (P < 0.05). The rate of active sexual life of 16.3% (14/86) in group A was significantly higher than 1.7% (1/58) in group B and 0 in group C (P < 0.05). The index of life quality improvement at 12 months after surgery was 48 ± 12 in group A, which was no less than 53 ± 16 in group C (P > 0.05) and higher than 27 ± 9 in group B (P < 0.05). (5) Mesh rejection was observed in 6 patients in group A within 3 months after surgery, while the posterior vaginal wall was exclusively involved. No difference was found in urinary retention or urinary incontinence among three groups (P > 0.05). (6) The severe degree of POP, type of surgical procedure (TVT-APC), anterior compartment defect of pelvic floor, and early days of performing pelvic floor reconstruction surgeries were high risk factors for POP recurrence (P < 0.05).ConclusionsMPFR has a better curative effect and lower recurrence rate on patients with POP. It can help patients regain integrity of anatomical structure and functions of pelvic floor. TVH-LC-SSLF-VBR-EP is also effective.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…