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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology 2008-03, Vol.137 (1), p.108-113
Hauptverfasser: Sentilhes, Loïc, Sergent, Fabrice, Resch, Benoît, Verspyck, Eric, Descamps, Philippe, Marpeau, Loïc
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 &lt; .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 &amp; 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=20148051$$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 &amp; 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 &lt; .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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &lt; .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