Dataset Information

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy for coexisting pelvic organ prolapse and external rectal prolapse.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) POP is defined as the protrusion of pelvic organs from the vaginal canal. POP often coexists with internal rectal prolapse or external rectal prolapse (ERP). A series of patients with coexisting POP and ERP who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) combined with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) are reported here. METHODS:Seven patients underwent LVR and LSC together. Fecal incontinence was assessed by the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI), constipation was assessed by the Constipation Scoring System (CSS), and urinary incontinence was assessed by the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF). Anatomical disorders were assessed by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) and defecography. RESULTS:The patients' median age was 81 (60-88) years. The median operative time was 380 (282-430) minutes. The median postoperative hospital stay was 3 (1-5) days. There were no postoperative complications. The FISI, CSS, POP-Q, and defecography findings improved postoperatively; however, the ICIQ-SF deteriorated in 2 of 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS:LVR combined with LSC for coexisting POP and ERP is feasible.

SUBMITTER: Kiyasu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6768687 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy for coexisting pelvic organ prolapse and external rectal prolapse.

Kiyasu Yoshiyuki Y Tsunoda Akira A Takahashi Tomoko T Nomura Masayoshi M

Journal of the anus, rectum and colon 20170101 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) POP is defined as the protrusion of pelvic organs from the vaginal canal. POP often coexists with internal rectal prolapse or external rectal prolapse (ERP). A series of patients with coexisting POP and ERP who underwent laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR) combined with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) are reported here.<h4>Methods</h4>Seven patients underwent LVR and LSC together. Fecal incontinence was assessed by the Fecal Incontinence Severity ...[more]

PMID: 31583315

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSacrocolpopexy is the gold standard procedure for treating pelvic organ prolapse (POP) patients with apical defects. Different surgical approaches have emerged and been utilized successively, including traditional laparoscopy, single-hole laparoscopy, robotic laparoscopy, vaginal-assisted laparoscopy, and transvaginal approaches. Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has attracted increasing attention as an emerging surgical technique and has unique advantages, such as a "simulated wrist" mechanical arm and high-definition three-dimensional (3D) visual field, which has gradually begun to be utilized in the clinical setting.MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist, and a systematic literature search was conducted on six databases from their inception to 1st March 2020. We evaluated patients with POP who underwent RSC or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC), outcomes (including perioperative outcomes: blood loss, operating times, blood transfusion, and hospital stay), surgery-related complications, as well as cure and recurrence rates.ResultsA total of 49 articles were available, including 3,014 patients, among which 18 were comparative studies on LSC vs. RSC, and 31 were non-comparative single-arm studies on RSC. For RSC, median operative time was 226 [90-604] minutes, estimated blood loss was 56 [5-1,500] mL, and hospital stay was 1.55 [1-16] days. Intraoperative complications and postoperative complications occurred in 74 (2.7%) and 360 (13.0%) patients, respectively. Of 2,768 RSC patients, 40 had been converted from a robot-assisted approach to other approaches, and 134 of 1,852 patients (7.2%) have recurrent prolapses of any compartment. Compared to LSC, RSC was associated with significantly lower blood loss and lower conversion rate. However, more operative time was observed in RSC. No significant differences were observed in perioperative transfusion, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or objective recurrence between RSC and LSC.ConclusionsRSC's application seems to contribute some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both approaches appear to promote equivalent clinical outcomes. Notably, heterogeneity among studies might have affected the outcome of the study. Consequently, high-quality and large-sample randomized trials comparing both techniques are necessitated.

Project description:ImportanceMore than 225 000 surgeries are performed annually in the United States for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is considered the most durable POP surgery, but little is known about safety and long-term effectiveness.ObjectivesTo describe anatomic and symptomatic outcomes up to 7 years after abdominal sacrocolpopexy, and to determine whether these are affected by concomitant anti-incontinence surgery (Burch urethropexy).Design, setting, and participantsLong-term follow-up of the randomized, masked 2-year Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial of women with stress continence who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy between 2002 and 2005 for symptomatic POP and also received either concomitant Burch urethropexy or no urethropexy. Ninety-two percent (215/233) of eligible 2-year CARE trial completers were enrolled in the extended CARE study; and 181 (84%) and 126 (59%) completed 5 and 7 years of follow-up, respectively. The median follow-up was 7 years.Main outcomes and measuresSymptomatic POP failure requiring retreatment or self-reported bulge; or anatomic POP failure requiring retreatment or Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification evaluation demonstrating descent of the vaginal apex below the upper third of the vagina, or anterior or posterior vaginal wall prolapse beyond the hymen. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with more than 1 symptom or interval treatment; or overall UI score of 3 or greater on the Incontinence Severity Index.ResultsBy year 7, the estimated probabilities of treatment failure (POP, SUI, UI) from parametric survival modeling for the urethropexy group and the no urethropexy group, respectively, were 0.27 and 0.22 for anatomic POP (treatment difference of 0.050; 95% CI, -0.161 to 0.271), 0.29 and 0.24 for symptomatic POP (treatment difference of 0.049; 95% CI, -0.060 to 0.162), 0.48 and 0.34 for composite POP (treatment difference of 0.134; 95% CI, -0.096 to 0.322), 0.62 and 0.77 for SUI (treatment difference of -0.153; 95% CI, -0.268 to 0.030), and 0.75 and 0.81 for overall UI (treatment difference of -0.064; 95% CI, -0.161 to 0.032). Mesh erosion probability at 7 years (estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method) was 10.5% (95% CI, 6.8% to 16.1%).Conclusions and relevanceDuring 7 years of follow-up, abdominal sacrocolpopexy failure rates increased in both groups. Urethropexy prevented SUI longer than no urethropexy. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy effectiveness should be balanced with long-term risks of mesh or suture erosion.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00099372.

Project description:Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common health problem. The lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for prolapse is 11%. POP significantly affects the effects on quality of life and activities of daily living. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) has been viewed as the gold standard treatment for women with POP who desire reconstructive surgery. However, LSC is associated with technical difficulties, resulting in a long learning curve and operative time. Recently, our team introduced a new laparoscopic technique of inguinal ligament suspension (LILS) and had confirmed its safety and efficacy in treating vaginal vault prolapse. As a new surgical technique for POP, a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the LILS with the standard technique of LSC is necessary. Therefore, we will conduct a trial.The trial is a randomized controlled trial. It compares LILS with LSC in women with stage 2 or higher uterine prolapse. The primary outcomes of this study are perioperative parameters, including surgical time, blood loss, intraoperative complications, and hospital stay as well as surgical anatomical results using the pelvic organ prolapse questionnaire (POP-Q) classification at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and annually till 5 years after surgery. Secondary outcomes are subjective improvement in urogenital symptoms and quality of life, postoperative complications, postoperative recovery, sexual functioning, and cost-effectiveness at each follow-up point. Validated questionnaires will be used and the data will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Based on an objective success rate of 90%, a noninferiority margin of 15%, and a dropout of 20%, 107 patients are needed in each arm to prove the hypothesis with a 95% confidence interval.The trial is a randomized controlled, multicenter, noninferiority trial that will provide evidence whether the efficacy and safety of LILS is noninferior to LSC in women with symptomatic stage 2 or higher uterine prolapse.China Trial Register (CTR): ChiCTR-INR-15007408 . Registered on 9 November 2015.

Project description:IntroductionLaparoscopic sacral colpopexy is the gold standard technique for apical prolapse correction but it is a technically challenging procedure with rare but severe morbidity. Laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension could be a valid technically easier alternative using native tissue.Material and methodsIn the period from 2015 to 2018, 600 women were submitted to laparoscopic sacral colpopexy while 150 to laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension in three Italian urogynecology referral centers. We enrolled women with apical prolapse stage ≥2 alone or multicompartment descensus. To reduce allocation bias, we performed a propensity matched analysis. Women undergoing laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension surgery were matched 1:2 to women undergoing laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. The cumulative proportion of relapse-free women in time was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. The primary objective of this multicenter case-control retrospective study was to compare the recurrence rate while the secondary objectives were to compare feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy and laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.ResultsThree hundred and nine women were enrolled (103 laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension; 206 laparoscopic sacral colpopexy). Median operatory time was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension group (P = 0.0001). No statistically significative difference was found in terms of estimated blood loss, admission time, intraoperative, and major early postoperative complications, postoperative pelvic pain, dyspareunia and de novo stress urinary incontinence. Surgical approach was the only independent risk factor for prolapse recurrence (RR = 6.013 [2.965-12.193], P = 0.0001). The objective cure rate was higher in the laparoscopic sacral colpopexy group (93.7 vs. 68%, 193/206 vs. 70/103, P = 0.0001) with a highly reduced risk of recurrence (RR = 5.430 [1.660-17.765]). Median follow up was 22 months.ConclusionBoth techniques are safe, feasible, and effective. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy remains the best choice in treatment of multicompartment and advanced pelvic organ prolapse while laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension could be appropriate for moderate and isolated apical prolapse when laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is not suitable for the patient or to prevent prolapse in women at high risk at the time of the hysterectomy.

Dataset Information

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy for coexisting pelvic organ prolapse and external rectal prolapse.

Publications

Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy for coexisting pelvic organ prolapse and external rectal prolapse.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets