Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women and often requires surgical management. Vaginal vault prolapse requires significant expertise. The pelvic reconstructive surgeon should be familiar with various methods of repair, including the vaginal approach, in order to provide appropriate indiv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology 2003-10, Vol.15 (5), p.435-437
Hauptverfasser: Lovatsis, Danny, P Drutz, Harold
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 437
container_issue 5
container_start_page 435
container_title Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology
container_volume 15
creator Lovatsis, Danny
P Drutz, Harold
description Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women and often requires surgical management. Vaginal vault prolapse requires significant expertise. The pelvic reconstructive surgeon should be familiar with various methods of repair, including the vaginal approach, in order to provide appropriate individualized patient care. The safety of procedures should be balanced against the need for anatomic correction. Vaginal surgical approaches such as sacrospinous suspension, although shown in the past to have slightly less success than abdominal approaches such as sacral colpopexy, continue to have good safety and efficacy profiles, and may be used in appropriately selected patients. Randomized clinical trials are still required to compare different vaginal procedures such as sacrospinous and uterosacral ligament suspension. A new minimally invasive transperineal approach, posterior intravaginal slingplasty, requires further evaluation before being used in routine clinical practice. Posthysterectomy prolapse of the apical vaginal compartment frequently requires a surgical solution. This may be approached via the abdominal, vaginal or combined route. A vaginal approach, being less invasive, may be the safer option if carefully performed. The gynecologic surgeon must balance the advantages of anatomic correction (e.g. with sacrospinous vault suspension) against the advantages of a potentially safer yet less anatomically correct procedure (e.g. colpocleisis). The surgical approach must be individualized for every patient.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00001703-200310000-00013
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73677534</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>73677534</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-dac14fdd8043be548b90d1313614ee18dda1cdce0b0a93bbeadab0e97105361e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkMtOwzAQRb0A0VL4BeQVu4CndpqEHap4SZXYAGJnTexJCcoLO6nUv8ehAbzx9Z07ntFhjIO4ApEl1yIcSISMlkJIGF_R6MgjNgehRJQmy_cZO_X-M7jLTKQnbAYqDlqlc0ZvuC0brLgf3LY0QWDXuRbNB-9bvpuKOxyqnge_ws7TDTdt40tLDvsyKN4WHBvs27o0oeQcmdEPnuUeC-r3Z-y4wMrT-XQv2Ov93cv6Mdo8PzytbzeRkQB9ZNGAKqxNhZI5xSrNM2FBglyBIoLUWgRjDYlcYCbznNBiLihLQMQhQ3LBLg__hlW_BvK9rktvqKqwoXbwOpGrJImlCsH0EDSu9d5RoTtX1uj2GoQesepfrPoPq_7BGlovphlDXpP9b5yYym-lPHdn</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73677534</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Lovatsis, Danny ; P Drutz, Harold</creator><creatorcontrib>Lovatsis, Danny ; P Drutz, Harold</creatorcontrib><description>Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women and often requires surgical management. Vaginal vault prolapse requires significant expertise. The pelvic reconstructive surgeon should be familiar with various methods of repair, including the vaginal approach, in order to provide appropriate individualized patient care. The safety of procedures should be balanced against the need for anatomic correction. Vaginal surgical approaches such as sacrospinous suspension, although shown in the past to have slightly less success than abdominal approaches such as sacral colpopexy, continue to have good safety and efficacy profiles, and may be used in appropriately selected patients. Randomized clinical trials are still required to compare different vaginal procedures such as sacrospinous and uterosacral ligament suspension. A new minimally invasive transperineal approach, posterior intravaginal slingplasty, requires further evaluation before being used in routine clinical practice. Posthysterectomy prolapse of the apical vaginal compartment frequently requires a surgical solution. This may be approached via the abdominal, vaginal or combined route. A vaginal approach, being less invasive, may be the safer option if carefully performed. The gynecologic surgeon must balance the advantages of anatomic correction (e.g. with sacrospinous vault suspension) against the advantages of a potentially safer yet less anatomically correct procedure (e.g. colpocleisis). The surgical approach must be individualized for every patient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1040-872X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00001703-200310000-00013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14501248</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Female ; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures ; Humans ; Uterine Prolapse - surgery ; Vagina - surgery</subject><ispartof>Current opinion in obstetrics &amp; gynecology, 2003-10, Vol.15 (5), p.435-437</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-dac14fdd8043be548b90d1313614ee18dda1cdce0b0a93bbeadab0e97105361e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-dac14fdd8043be548b90d1313614ee18dda1cdce0b0a93bbeadab0e97105361e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14501248$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lovatsis, Danny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>P Drutz, Harold</creatorcontrib><title>Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety</title><title>Current opinion in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</title><addtitle>Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women and often requires surgical management. Vaginal vault prolapse requires significant expertise. The pelvic reconstructive surgeon should be familiar with various methods of repair, including the vaginal approach, in order to provide appropriate individualized patient care. The safety of procedures should be balanced against the need for anatomic correction. Vaginal surgical approaches such as sacrospinous suspension, although shown in the past to have slightly less success than abdominal approaches such as sacral colpopexy, continue to have good safety and efficacy profiles, and may be used in appropriately selected patients. Randomized clinical trials are still required to compare different vaginal procedures such as sacrospinous and uterosacral ligament suspension. A new minimally invasive transperineal approach, posterior intravaginal slingplasty, requires further evaluation before being used in routine clinical practice. Posthysterectomy prolapse of the apical vaginal compartment frequently requires a surgical solution. This may be approached via the abdominal, vaginal or combined route. A vaginal approach, being less invasive, may be the safer option if carefully performed. The gynecologic surgeon must balance the advantages of anatomic correction (e.g. with sacrospinous vault suspension) against the advantages of a potentially safer yet less anatomically correct procedure (e.g. colpocleisis). The surgical approach must be individualized for every patient.</description><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Uterine Prolapse - surgery</subject><subject>Vagina - surgery</subject><issn>1040-872X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkMtOwzAQRb0A0VL4BeQVu4CndpqEHap4SZXYAGJnTexJCcoLO6nUv8ehAbzx9Z07ntFhjIO4ApEl1yIcSISMlkJIGF_R6MgjNgehRJQmy_cZO_X-M7jLTKQnbAYqDlqlc0ZvuC0brLgf3LY0QWDXuRbNB-9bvpuKOxyqnge_ws7TDTdt40tLDvsyKN4WHBvs27o0oeQcmdEPnuUeC-r3Z-y4wMrT-XQv2Ov93cv6Mdo8PzytbzeRkQB9ZNGAKqxNhZI5xSrNM2FBglyBIoLUWgRjDYlcYCbznNBiLihLQMQhQ3LBLg__hlW_BvK9rktvqKqwoXbwOpGrJImlCsH0EDSu9d5RoTtX1uj2GoQesepfrPoPq_7BGlovphlDXpP9b5yYym-lPHdn</recordid><startdate>200310</startdate><enddate>200310</enddate><creator>Lovatsis, Danny</creator><creator>P Drutz, Harold</creator><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>200310</creationdate><title>Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety</title><author>Lovatsis, Danny ; P Drutz, Harold</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c311t-dac14fdd8043be548b90d1313614ee18dda1cdce0b0a93bbeadab0e97105361e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecologic Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Uterine Prolapse - surgery</topic><topic>Vagina - surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lovatsis, Danny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>P Drutz, Harold</creatorcontrib><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>Current opinion in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lovatsis, Danny</au><au>P Drutz, Harold</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety</atitle><jtitle>Current opinion in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2003-10</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>435</spage><epage>437</epage><pages>435-437</pages><issn>1040-872X</issn><abstract>Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women and often requires surgical management. Vaginal vault prolapse requires significant expertise. The pelvic reconstructive surgeon should be familiar with various methods of repair, including the vaginal approach, in order to provide appropriate individualized patient care. The safety of procedures should be balanced against the need for anatomic correction. Vaginal surgical approaches such as sacrospinous suspension, although shown in the past to have slightly less success than abdominal approaches such as sacral colpopexy, continue to have good safety and efficacy profiles, and may be used in appropriately selected patients. Randomized clinical trials are still required to compare different vaginal procedures such as sacrospinous and uterosacral ligament suspension. A new minimally invasive transperineal approach, posterior intravaginal slingplasty, requires further evaluation before being used in routine clinical practice. Posthysterectomy prolapse of the apical vaginal compartment frequently requires a surgical solution. This may be approached via the abdominal, vaginal or combined route. A vaginal approach, being less invasive, may be the safer option if carefully performed. The gynecologic surgeon must balance the advantages of anatomic correction (e.g. with sacrospinous vault suspension) against the advantages of a potentially safer yet less anatomically correct procedure (e.g. colpocleisis). The surgical approach must be individualized for every patient.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>14501248</pmid><doi>10.1097/00001703-200310000-00013</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1040-872X
ispartof Current opinion in obstetrics & gynecology, 2003-10, Vol.15 (5), p.435-437
issn 1040-872X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73677534
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Female
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
Humans
Uterine Prolapse - surgery
Vagina - surgery
title Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T03%3A28%3A06IST&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=Vaginal%20surgical%20approach%20to%20vaginal%20vault%20prolapse:%20considerations%20of%20anatomic%20correction%20and%20safety&rft.jtitle=Current%20opinion%20in%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology&rft.au=Lovatsis,%20Danny&rft.date=2003-10&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=435&rft.epage=437&rft.pages=435-437&rft.issn=1040-872X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00001703-200310000-00013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E73677534%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=73677534&rft_id=info:pmid/14501248&rfr_iscdi=true