Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition for apical and posterior compartment prolapse
Abstract Objective To assess the efficacy, safety and functional outcome of infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition performed alone or in combination with the implantation of other prosthetic materials for prolapse repair. Study design Seventy-two patients requiring pro...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 2008-03, Vol.137 (1), p.108-113 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 113 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 108 |
container_title | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology |
container_volume | 137 |
creator | Sentilhes, Loïc Sergent, Fabrice Resch, Benoît Verspyck, Eric Descamps, Philippe Marpeau, Loïc |
description | Abstract Objective To assess the efficacy, safety and functional outcome of infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition performed alone or in combination with the implantation of other prosthetic materials for prolapse repair. Study design Seventy-two patients requiring prolapse repair for apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse, operated between March 2002 and September 2005. Patients underwent physical examination for prolapse assessment according to the international pelvic organ prolapse staging system and were evaluated for objective and subjective prolapse symptoms pre- and post-operatively. Objective success was defined by the midline posterior vaginal wall at stage 0 or 1, while subjective success was defined by a score above or equal to 7.5 measured on a visual analogue scale (0, very disappointed; 10, very satisfied). Follow-up was done at 6 weeks, 6 months and then once a year. Results Seventy-two patients with a mean age of 65 years were followed-up with a median of 26.3 months (range 10–43). Stages 3 and 4 represented 65.3% of all apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse. Fifty-nine patients had a concomitant anterior prolapse repair. Both objective and subjective success rates were 97.2%. All subjective prolapse symptoms decreased after surgery. The only intraoperative complication was one rectal injury. Vaginal erosion rate was 13.9% and mesh infection rate was 4.2%. Vaginal erosions statistically occurred less often with monofilament polypropylene (5.7%, 2/35) than with multifilament polypropylene (13.6%, 3/22) or polyester (33.3%, 5/15) ( p < .04). Conclusion Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition provides effective and promising results in correcting apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse. Analysis of long-term success rates and comparison with previously accepted surgical procedures are required to determine the place of this procedure in the strategy of genital prolapse repair. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.10.011 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70327791</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0301211507004654</els_id><sourcerecordid>70327791</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-3ef48fc11709c566b67124d22efba8f30af0a7a115a74795ce2adadae29fc87c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhi1ERZfCP0AoF7hlO3acOLkgoYqPSpV6AM6W1xm3Dokd7Gxh_30n2hUgLjgHK6PHrzNPhrFXHLYceHM5bHGId2m3FQCKSlvg_Anb8FaJUjW1fMo2UAEvBef1OXue8wC0qqp7xs55K6ARHWxYvg4uGRutPdyhGYtsbIoz_joUCX1wMVnsi59-uS_mmBdMPqZiwnxf-EBvVPOLj6EgsDCzt5RgQv8Xa-M0m7RMGJZiTnE0c8YX7MyZMePL037Bvn388PXqc3lz--n66v1NaaWsl7JCJ1tnOVfQ2bppdo3iQvZCoNuZ1lVgHBhlqD2jpOpqi8L09KDonG2VrS7Y22MuXfxjj3nRk88Wx9EEjPusFVRCqY4TKI8g9Z5zQqfn5CeTDpqDXmXrQR9l61X2WiXZdOz1KX-_m7D_c-hkl4A3J8BkUkOig_X5NyeAyxbqNejdkUOy8eAx6Ww9BlLvE9pF99H_70v-DbCjD-vv-I4HzEPcp0CmNddZaNBf1sFY5wIUgKRZqR4BUAK3jA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70327791</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition for apical and posterior compartment prolapse</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Sentilhes, Loïc ; Sergent, Fabrice ; Resch, Benoît ; Verspyck, Eric ; Descamps, Philippe ; Marpeau, Loïc</creator><creatorcontrib>Sentilhes, Loïc ; Sergent, Fabrice ; Resch, Benoît ; Verspyck, Eric ; Descamps, Philippe ; Marpeau, Loïc</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objective To assess the efficacy, safety and functional outcome of infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition performed alone or in combination with the implantation of other prosthetic materials for prolapse repair. Study design Seventy-two patients requiring prolapse repair for apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse, operated between March 2002 and September 2005. Patients underwent physical examination for prolapse assessment according to the international pelvic organ prolapse staging system and were evaluated for objective and subjective prolapse symptoms pre- and post-operatively. Objective success was defined by the midline posterior vaginal wall at stage 0 or 1, while subjective success was defined by a score above or equal to 7.5 measured on a visual analogue scale (0, very disappointed; 10, very satisfied). Follow-up was done at 6 weeks, 6 months and then once a year. Results Seventy-two patients with a mean age of 65 years were followed-up with a median of 26.3 months (range 10–43). Stages 3 and 4 represented 65.3% of all apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse. Fifty-nine patients had a concomitant anterior prolapse repair. Both objective and subjective success rates were 97.2%. All subjective prolapse symptoms decreased after surgery. The only intraoperative complication was one rectal injury. Vaginal erosion rate was 13.9% and mesh infection rate was 4.2%. Vaginal erosions statistically occurred less often with monofilament polypropylene (5.7%, 2/35) than with multifilament polypropylene (13.6%, 3/22) or polyester (33.3%, 5/15) ( p < .04). Conclusion Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition provides effective and promising results in correcting apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse. Analysis of long-term success rates and comparison with previously accepted surgical procedures are required to determine the place of this procedure in the strategy of genital prolapse repair.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-2115</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7654</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.10.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18206290</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EOGRAL</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Shannon: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biological and medical sciences ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Infracoccygeal sacropexy ; Medical sciences ; Mesh ; Middle Aged ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; Other diseases. Semiology ; Patient Satisfaction ; Pelvic Floor ; Posterior intravaginal slingplasty ; Prospective Studies ; Rectocele ; Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus ; Suburethral Slings ; Surgical Mesh - adverse effects ; Treatment Outcome ; Uterine Prolapse - surgery ; Vaginal erosion ; Vaginal vault prolapse</subject><ispartof>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology, 2008-03, Vol.137 (1), p.108-113</ispartof><rights>2008</rights><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-3ef48fc11709c566b67124d22efba8f30af0a7a115a74795ce2adadae29fc87c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-3ef48fc11709c566b67124d22efba8f30af0a7a115a74795ce2adadae29fc87c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.10.011$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=20148051$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18206290$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sentilhes, Loïc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sergent, Fabrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Resch, Benoît</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verspyck, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Descamps, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marpeau, Loïc</creatorcontrib><title>Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition for apical and posterior compartment prolapse</title><title>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</title><addtitle>Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objective To assess the efficacy, safety and functional outcome of infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition performed alone or in combination with the implantation of other prosthetic materials for prolapse repair. Study design Seventy-two patients requiring prolapse repair for apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse, operated between March 2002 and September 2005. Patients underwent physical examination for prolapse assessment according to the international pelvic organ prolapse staging system and were evaluated for objective and subjective prolapse symptoms pre- and post-operatively. Objective success was defined by the midline posterior vaginal wall at stage 0 or 1, while subjective success was defined by a score above or equal to 7.5 measured on a visual analogue scale (0, very disappointed; 10, very satisfied). Follow-up was done at 6 weeks, 6 months and then once a year. Results Seventy-two patients with a mean age of 65 years were followed-up with a median of 26.3 months (range 10–43). Stages 3 and 4 represented 65.3% of all apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse. Fifty-nine patients had a concomitant anterior prolapse repair. Both objective and subjective success rates were 97.2%. All subjective prolapse symptoms decreased after surgery. The only intraoperative complication was one rectal injury. Vaginal erosion rate was 13.9% and mesh infection rate was 4.2%. Vaginal erosions statistically occurred less often with monofilament polypropylene (5.7%, 2/35) than with multifilament polypropylene (13.6%, 3/22) or polyester (33.3%, 5/15) ( p < .04). Conclusion Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition provides effective and promising results in correcting apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse. Analysis of long-term success rates and comparison with previously accepted surgical procedures are required to determine the place of this procedure in the strategy of genital prolapse repair.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</subject><subject>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infracoccygeal sacropexy</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mesh</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>Other diseases. Semiology</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Pelvic Floor</subject><subject>Posterior intravaginal slingplasty</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Rectocele</subject><subject>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</subject><subject>Suburethral Slings</subject><subject>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Uterine Prolapse - surgery</subject><subject>Vaginal erosion</subject><subject>Vaginal vault prolapse</subject><issn>0301-2115</issn><issn>1872-7654</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk1v1DAQhi1ERZfCP0AoF7hlO3acOLkgoYqPSpV6AM6W1xm3Dokd7Gxh_30n2hUgLjgHK6PHrzNPhrFXHLYceHM5bHGId2m3FQCKSlvg_Anb8FaJUjW1fMo2UAEvBef1OXue8wC0qqp7xs55K6ARHWxYvg4uGRutPdyhGYtsbIoz_joUCX1wMVnsi59-uS_mmBdMPqZiwnxf-EBvVPOLj6EgsDCzt5RgQv8Xa-M0m7RMGJZiTnE0c8YX7MyZMePL037Bvn388PXqc3lz--n66v1NaaWsl7JCJ1tnOVfQ2bppdo3iQvZCoNuZ1lVgHBhlqD2jpOpqi8L09KDonG2VrS7Y22MuXfxjj3nRk88Wx9EEjPusFVRCqY4TKI8g9Z5zQqfn5CeTDpqDXmXrQR9l61X2WiXZdOz1KX-_m7D_c-hkl4A3J8BkUkOig_X5NyeAyxbqNejdkUOy8eAx6Ww9BlLvE9pF99H_70v-DbCjD-vv-I4HzEPcp0CmNddZaNBf1sFY5wIUgKRZqR4BUAK3jA</recordid><startdate>20080301</startdate><enddate>20080301</enddate><creator>Sentilhes, Loïc</creator><creator>Sergent, Fabrice</creator><creator>Resch, Benoît</creator><creator>Verspyck, Eric</creator><creator>Descamps, Philippe</creator><creator>Marpeau, Loïc</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080301</creationdate><title>Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition for apical and posterior compartment prolapse</title><author>Sentilhes, Loïc ; Sergent, Fabrice ; Resch, Benoît ; Verspyck, Eric ; Descamps, Philippe ; Marpeau, Loïc</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c445t-3ef48fc11709c566b67124d22efba8f30af0a7a115a74795ce2adadae29fc87c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</topic><topic>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infracoccygeal sacropexy</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mesh</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>Other diseases. Semiology</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Pelvic Floor</topic><topic>Posterior intravaginal slingplasty</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Rectocele</topic><topic>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</topic><topic>Suburethral Slings</topic><topic>Surgical Mesh - adverse effects</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Uterine Prolapse - surgery</topic><topic>Vaginal erosion</topic><topic>Vaginal vault prolapse</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sentilhes, Loïc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sergent, Fabrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Resch, Benoît</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verspyck, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Descamps, Philippe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marpeau, Loïc</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sentilhes, Loïc</au><au>Sergent, Fabrice</au><au>Resch, Benoît</au><au>Verspyck, Eric</au><au>Descamps, Philippe</au><au>Marpeau, Loïc</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition for apical and posterior compartment prolapse</atitle><jtitle>European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol</addtitle><date>2008-03-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>137</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>108</spage><epage>113</epage><pages>108-113</pages><issn>0301-2115</issn><eissn>1872-7654</eissn><coden>EOGRAL</coden><abstract>Abstract Objective To assess the efficacy, safety and functional outcome of infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition performed alone or in combination with the implantation of other prosthetic materials for prolapse repair. Study design Seventy-two patients requiring prolapse repair for apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse, operated between March 2002 and September 2005. Patients underwent physical examination for prolapse assessment according to the international pelvic organ prolapse staging system and were evaluated for objective and subjective prolapse symptoms pre- and post-operatively. Objective success was defined by the midline posterior vaginal wall at stage 0 or 1, while subjective success was defined by a score above or equal to 7.5 measured on a visual analogue scale (0, very disappointed; 10, very satisfied). Follow-up was done at 6 weeks, 6 months and then once a year. Results Seventy-two patients with a mean age of 65 years were followed-up with a median of 26.3 months (range 10–43). Stages 3 and 4 represented 65.3% of all apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse. Fifty-nine patients had a concomitant anterior prolapse repair. Both objective and subjective success rates were 97.2%. All subjective prolapse symptoms decreased after surgery. The only intraoperative complication was one rectal injury. Vaginal erosion rate was 13.9% and mesh infection rate was 4.2%. Vaginal erosions statistically occurred less often with monofilament polypropylene (5.7%, 2/35) than with multifilament polypropylene (13.6%, 3/22) or polyester (33.3%, 5/15) ( p < .04). Conclusion Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition provides effective and promising results in correcting apical and/or posterior compartment prolapse. Analysis of long-term success rates and comparison with previously accepted surgical procedures are required to determine the place of this procedure in the strategy of genital prolapse repair.</abstract><cop>Shannon</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>18206290</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.10.011</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0301-2115 |
ispartof | European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology, 2008-03, Vol.137 (1), p.108-113 |
issn | 0301-2115 1872-7654 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70327791 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Biological and medical sciences Female Follow-Up Studies Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Infracoccygeal sacropexy Medical sciences Mesh Middle Aged Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - adverse effects Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods Obstetrics and Gynecology Other diseases. Semiology Patient Satisfaction Pelvic Floor Posterior intravaginal slingplasty Prospective Studies Rectocele Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus Suburethral Slings Surgical Mesh - adverse effects Treatment Outcome Uterine Prolapse - surgery Vaginal erosion Vaginal vault prolapse |
title | Infracoccygeal sacropexy reinforced with posterior mesh interposition for apical and posterior compartment prolapse |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T06%3A19%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Infracoccygeal%20sacropexy%20reinforced%20with%20posterior%20mesh%20interposition%20for%20apical%20and%20posterior%20compartment%20prolapse&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology%20and%20reproductive%20biology&rft.au=Sentilhes,%20Lo%C3%AFc&rft.date=2008-03-01&rft.volume=137&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=108&rft.epage=113&rft.pages=108-113&rft.issn=0301-2115&rft.eissn=1872-7654&rft.coden=EOGRAL&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.10.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70327791%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70327791&rft_id=info:pmid/18206290&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0301211507004654&rfr_iscdi=true |