Outcome of vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery in multiparous compared with grand multiparous women: Retrospective long-term follow-up
We aimed to compare the long-term surgical outcome and complications of multiparous and grand multiparous women undergoing reconstructive surgery with vaginal mesh implants for repair of pelvic organ prolapse. This retrospective, long-term follow-up (28.17±20.7 months) comprised 113 women who underw...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2017-05, Vol.12 (5), p.e0176666-e0176666 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0176666 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | e0176666 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 12 |
| creator | Levy, Gil Peled, Yoav From, Anat Fainberg, Irena Barak, Sarit Aviram, Amir Krissi, Haim |
| description | We aimed to compare the long-term surgical outcome and complications of multiparous and grand multiparous women undergoing reconstructive surgery with vaginal mesh implants for repair of pelvic organ prolapse. This retrospective, long-term follow-up (28.17±20.7 months) comprised 113 women who underwent surgical reconstructive surgery with vaginal polypropylene mesh in a high parity rate population medical center. The women were divided into 2 groups (multiparous and grand multiparous) and each group was evaluated for objective and subjective surgical outcome. Patient demographics and surgical data were retrieved from electronic medical records. Outcome measure included POP-Q exam as objective outcome and validated Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory questionnaire (PFDI) to assess subjective outcome. Average age of patients was 62±7.9 (range 42-83) years. Average parity was 5.6±3.1 (range 1-14). There were 54 (47.7%) multiparous women and 59 (52.3%) grand multiparous women. The grand multiparous women were younger than the multiparous women and had a significantly higher degree of prolapse. At the last follow-up, the only significant difference was related to symptoms of an overactive bladder. In conclusion, long-term follow-up demonstrates that vaginal mesh surgery in grand multiparous women offers anatomical and subjective cure rates comparable to multiparous women. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0176666 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1895355720</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A491119733</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_798f548258c54ea2895095b5be6af825</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A491119733</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f48f194d5273d36b4ece66bdb73f84ff6b6b089e98ebf4373212e878479937f33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7jr6D0QLguhFx6Zpk8YLYVn8GFgYWD9uQ9qedDKkTU3SGfcP-LvNON1lKnthe9Fw8pw3OW_PiaLnKF0iTNG7rRltL_RyMD0sU0RJeB5E54jhLCFZih-erM-iJ85t07TAJSGPo7OszGmGaHYe_V6PvjYdxEbGO9GqoBh34Daxhdr0ztux9moHsRttC_YmVn3cjdqrQVgzujikhhU08V75Tdxa0Tez_X2Q7t_H1-CtcQMctbTp28SD7WJptDb7ZByeRo-k0A6eTd9F9P3Tx2-XX5Kr9efV5cVVUhOW-UTmpUQsb4qM4gaTKocaCKmaimJZ5lKSilRpyYCVUMkcU5yhDEoaqmUMU4nxInp51B20cXyy0HFUsgIXBQ1WLaLVkWiM2PLBqk7YG26E4n8DxrZcWK9qDZyyUhZ5mRVlXeQgsiCSsqIqKiBChnDQ-jCdNlYdNDX03go9E53v9GrDW7PjRY5owUgQeDMJWPNzBOd5p1wNWosegr2He5M0zwgpA_rqH_T-6iaqFaEA1UsTzq0PovwiZwghRvHBpeU9VHgb6FRoC5AqxGcJb2cJgfHwy7didI6vvl7_P7v-MWdfn7AbENpvnNGjV6E352B-BOvQZ86CvDMZpfwwLrdu8MO48GlcQtqL0x90l3Q7H_gPwmsSZQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1895355720</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Outcome of vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery in multiparous compared with grand multiparous women: Retrospective long-term follow-up</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Levy, Gil ; Peled, Yoav ; From, Anat ; Fainberg, Irena ; Barak, Sarit ; Aviram, Amir ; Krissi, Haim</creator><contributor>Lee, RK</contributor><creatorcontrib>Levy, Gil ; Peled, Yoav ; From, Anat ; Fainberg, Irena ; Barak, Sarit ; Aviram, Amir ; Krissi, Haim ; Lee, RK</creatorcontrib><description>We aimed to compare the long-term surgical outcome and complications of multiparous and grand multiparous women undergoing reconstructive surgery with vaginal mesh implants for repair of pelvic organ prolapse. This retrospective, long-term follow-up (28.17±20.7 months) comprised 113 women who underwent surgical reconstructive surgery with vaginal polypropylene mesh in a high parity rate population medical center. The women were divided into 2 groups (multiparous and grand multiparous) and each group was evaluated for objective and subjective surgical outcome. Patient demographics and surgical data were retrieved from electronic medical records. Outcome measure included POP-Q exam as objective outcome and validated Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory questionnaire (PFDI) to assess subjective outcome. Average age of patients was 62±7.9 (range 42-83) years. Average parity was 5.6±3.1 (range 1-14). There were 54 (47.7%) multiparous women and 59 (52.3%) grand multiparous women. The grand multiparous women were younger than the multiparous women and had a significantly higher degree of prolapse. At the last follow-up, the only significant difference was related to symptoms of an overactive bladder. In conclusion, long-term follow-up demonstrates that vaginal mesh surgery in grand multiparous women offers anatomical and subjective cure rates comparable to multiparous women.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176666</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28472172</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Analysis ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Bleeding ; Blood transfusion ; Body mass ; Body mass index ; Cadmium ; Cesarean section ; Childbirth & labor ; Clinical trials ; Collagen ; Colleges & universities ; Complications ; Computer programs ; Connective tissues ; Damage ; Defects ; Division ; Electronic medical records ; Estrogens ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gynecology ; Health risk assessment ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Intestine ; Laparoscopy ; Medical records ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Middle Aged ; Obstetrics ; Pain ; Parity ; Patient outcomes ; Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery ; Perforation ; Plastic surgery ; Population studies ; Quality of life ; Questionnaires ; Reconstructive surgery ; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk factors ; Smoking ; Standardization ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical tests ; Statistics ; Surgery ; Terminology ; Transfusion ; Trauma ; Vagina ; Vagina - surgery ; Women ; World Wide Web</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2017-05, Vol.12 (5), p.e0176666-e0176666</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2017 Levy et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2017 Levy et al 2017 Levy et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f48f194d5273d36b4ece66bdb73f84ff6b6b089e98ebf4373212e878479937f33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f48f194d5273d36b4ece66bdb73f84ff6b6b089e98ebf4373212e878479937f33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5417596/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5417596/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28472172$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Lee, RK</contributor><creatorcontrib>Levy, Gil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peled, Yoav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>From, Anat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fainberg, Irena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barak, Sarit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aviram, Amir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krissi, Haim</creatorcontrib><title>Outcome of vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery in multiparous compared with grand multiparous women: Retrospective long-term follow-up</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>We aimed to compare the long-term surgical outcome and complications of multiparous and grand multiparous women undergoing reconstructive surgery with vaginal mesh implants for repair of pelvic organ prolapse. This retrospective, long-term follow-up (28.17±20.7 months) comprised 113 women who underwent surgical reconstructive surgery with vaginal polypropylene mesh in a high parity rate population medical center. The women were divided into 2 groups (multiparous and grand multiparous) and each group was evaluated for objective and subjective surgical outcome. Patient demographics and surgical data were retrieved from electronic medical records. Outcome measure included POP-Q exam as objective outcome and validated Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory questionnaire (PFDI) to assess subjective outcome. Average age of patients was 62±7.9 (range 42-83) years. Average parity was 5.6±3.1 (range 1-14). There were 54 (47.7%) multiparous women and 59 (52.3%) grand multiparous women. The grand multiparous women were younger than the multiparous women and had a significantly higher degree of prolapse. At the last follow-up, the only significant difference was related to symptoms of an overactive bladder. In conclusion, long-term follow-up demonstrates that vaginal mesh surgery in grand multiparous women offers anatomical and subjective cure rates comparable to multiparous women.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bleeding</subject><subject>Blood transfusion</subject><subject>Body mass</subject><subject>Body mass index</subject><subject>Cadmium</subject><subject>Cesarean section</subject><subject>Childbirth & labor</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Collagen</subject><subject>Colleges & universities</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Computer programs</subject><subject>Connective tissues</subject><subject>Damage</subject><subject>Defects</subject><subject>Division</subject><subject>Electronic medical records</subject><subject>Estrogens</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hysterectomy</subject><subject>Intestine</subject><subject>Laparoscopy</subject><subject>Medical records</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Parity</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery</subject><subject>Perforation</subject><subject>Plastic surgery</subject><subject>Population studies</subject><subject>Quality of life</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Reconstructive surgery</subject><subject>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Standardization</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Terminology</subject><subject>Transfusion</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><subject>Vagina</subject><subject>Vagina - surgery</subject><subject>Women</subject><subject>World Wide Web</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk12L1DAUhoso7jr6D0QLguhFx6Zpk8YLYVn8GFgYWD9uQ9qedDKkTU3SGfcP-LvNON1lKnthe9Fw8pw3OW_PiaLnKF0iTNG7rRltL_RyMD0sU0RJeB5E54jhLCFZih-erM-iJ85t07TAJSGPo7OszGmGaHYe_V6PvjYdxEbGO9GqoBh34Daxhdr0ztux9moHsRttC_YmVn3cjdqrQVgzujikhhU08V75Tdxa0Tez_X2Q7t_H1-CtcQMctbTp28SD7WJptDb7ZByeRo-k0A6eTd9F9P3Tx2-XX5Kr9efV5cVVUhOW-UTmpUQsb4qM4gaTKocaCKmaimJZ5lKSilRpyYCVUMkcU5yhDEoaqmUMU4nxInp51B20cXyy0HFUsgIXBQ1WLaLVkWiM2PLBqk7YG26E4n8DxrZcWK9qDZyyUhZ5mRVlXeQgsiCSsqIqKiBChnDQ-jCdNlYdNDX03go9E53v9GrDW7PjRY5owUgQeDMJWPNzBOd5p1wNWosegr2He5M0zwgpA_rqH_T-6iaqFaEA1UsTzq0PovwiZwghRvHBpeU9VHgb6FRoC5AqxGcJb2cJgfHwy7didI6vvl7_P7v-MWdfn7AbENpvnNGjV6E352B-BOvQZ86CvDMZpfwwLrdu8MO48GlcQtqL0x90l3Q7H_gPwmsSZQ</recordid><startdate>20170504</startdate><enddate>20170504</enddate><creator>Levy, Gil</creator><creator>Peled, Yoav</creator><creator>From, Anat</creator><creator>Fainberg, Irena</creator><creator>Barak, Sarit</creator><creator>Aviram, Amir</creator><creator>Krissi, Haim</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170504</creationdate><title>Outcome of vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery in multiparous compared with grand multiparous women: Retrospective long-term follow-up</title><author>Levy, Gil ; Peled, Yoav ; From, Anat ; Fainberg, Irena ; Barak, Sarit ; Aviram, Amir ; Krissi, Haim</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f48f194d5273d36b4ece66bdb73f84ff6b6b089e98ebf4373212e878479937f33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bleeding</topic><topic>Blood transfusion</topic><topic>Body mass</topic><topic>Body mass index</topic><topic>Cadmium</topic><topic>Cesarean section</topic><topic>Childbirth & labor</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Collagen</topic><topic>Colleges & universities</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Computer programs</topic><topic>Connective tissues</topic><topic>Damage</topic><topic>Defects</topic><topic>Division</topic><topic>Electronic medical records</topic><topic>Estrogens</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hysterectomy</topic><topic>Intestine</topic><topic>Laparoscopy</topic><topic>Medical records</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Parity</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery</topic><topic>Perforation</topic><topic>Plastic surgery</topic><topic>Population studies</topic><topic>Quality of life</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Reconstructive surgery</topic><topic>Reconstructive Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Standardization</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Terminology</topic><topic>Transfusion</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><topic>Vagina</topic><topic>Vagina - surgery</topic><topic>Women</topic><topic>World Wide Web</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Levy, Gil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peled, Yoav</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>From, Anat</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fainberg, Irena</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barak, Sarit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aviram, Amir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krissi, Haim</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Levy, Gil</au><au>Peled, Yoav</au><au>From, Anat</au><au>Fainberg, Irena</au><au>Barak, Sarit</au><au>Aviram, Amir</au><au>Krissi, Haim</au><au>Lee, RK</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Outcome of vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery in multiparous compared with grand multiparous women: Retrospective long-term follow-up</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2017-05-04</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0176666</spage><epage>e0176666</epage><pages>e0176666-e0176666</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>We aimed to compare the long-term surgical outcome and complications of multiparous and grand multiparous women undergoing reconstructive surgery with vaginal mesh implants for repair of pelvic organ prolapse. This retrospective, long-term follow-up (28.17±20.7 months) comprised 113 women who underwent surgical reconstructive surgery with vaginal polypropylene mesh in a high parity rate population medical center. The women were divided into 2 groups (multiparous and grand multiparous) and each group was evaluated for objective and subjective surgical outcome. Patient demographics and surgical data were retrieved from electronic medical records. Outcome measure included POP-Q exam as objective outcome and validated Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory questionnaire (PFDI) to assess subjective outcome. Average age of patients was 62±7.9 (range 42-83) years. Average parity was 5.6±3.1 (range 1-14). There were 54 (47.7%) multiparous women and 59 (52.3%) grand multiparous women. The grand multiparous women were younger than the multiparous women and had a significantly higher degree of prolapse. At the last follow-up, the only significant difference was related to symptoms of an overactive bladder. In conclusion, long-term follow-up demonstrates that vaginal mesh surgery in grand multiparous women offers anatomical and subjective cure rates comparable to multiparous women.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>28472172</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0176666</doi><tpages>e0176666</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2017-05, Vol.12 (5), p.e0176666-e0176666 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1895355720 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adult Age Aged Aged, 80 and over Analysis Biology and Life Sciences Bleeding Blood transfusion Body mass Body mass index Cadmium Cesarean section Childbirth & labor Clinical trials Collagen Colleges & universities Complications Computer programs Connective tissues Damage Defects Division Electronic medical records Estrogens Female Follow-Up Studies Gynecology Health risk assessment Hospitals Humans Hysterectomy Intestine Laparoscopy Medical records Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Middle Aged Obstetrics Pain Parity Patient outcomes Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery Perforation Plastic surgery Population studies Quality of life Questionnaires Reconstructive surgery Reconstructive Surgical Procedures Retrospective Studies Risk factors Smoking Standardization Statistical analysis Statistical tests Statistics Surgery Terminology Transfusion Trauma Vagina Vagina - surgery Women World Wide Web |
| title | Outcome of vaginal mesh reconstructive surgery in multiparous compared with grand multiparous women: Retrospective long-term follow-up |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T12%3A45%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Outcome%20of%20vaginal%20mesh%20reconstructive%20surgery%20in%20multiparous%20compared%20with%20grand%20multiparous%20women:%20Retrospective%20long-term%20follow-up&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Levy,%20Gil&rft.date=2017-05-04&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0176666&rft.epage=e0176666&rft.pages=e0176666-e0176666&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0176666&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA491119733%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1895355720&rft_id=info:pmid/28472172&rft_galeid=A491119733&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_798f548258c54ea2895095b5be6af825&rfr_iscdi=true |