Comparison Between Anterior-Apical Mesh (Surelift) and Anterior Mesh (Surelift-A) in Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: Surgical and Functional Outcomes at 1-Year Follow-Up.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Tsia-Shu Lo, Chia-Hsuan Yang, Eyal Rom, Louiza Erika Rellora, Lan-Sin Jhang, Wu-Chiao Hsieh
{"title":"Comparison Between Anterior-Apical Mesh (Surelift) and Anterior Mesh (Surelift-A) in Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: Surgical and Functional Outcomes at 1-Year Follow-Up.","authors":"Tsia-Shu Lo, Chia-Hsuan Yang, Eyal Rom, Louiza Erika Rellora, Lan-Sin Jhang, Wu-Chiao Hsieh","doi":"10.1007/s00192-024-05940-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Surelift is a transvaginal synthetic mesh (TVM) kit that is intended to treat anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The kit can be configured to use an anterior-apical (Surelift) or anterior (Surelift A) approach. The aims of this study were to evaluate the short-term objective and subjective outcomes of the different approaches at the 1-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From June 2018 to April 2021, a total of 280 patients with symptomatic advanced POP (stages III and IV) had surgery with the Surelift or Surelift A. The primary outcome was postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI), as well as subjective evaluation based on the Urinary Distress Inventory 6 (question 3 score > 1) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire 7, during the 1-year follow-up period. Secondary outcomes measured quality of life, the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms, and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 265 patients were assessed. Among these, 137 had Surelift, whereas 128 underwent Surelift A with SSF. At 1-year postoperative follow-up, de novo urodynamic stress incontinence occurred more frequently in the Surelift group than in the Surelift-A group (28.8% vs 9.1% respectively, p = 0.012). Additionally, Surelift patients had a higher rate of de novo SUI than Surelift A (33.2 vs 11.4 respectively, p = 0.013). Both study groups experienced improvements in their quality of life indicators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Surelift device is a safe and effective technique of treating advanced-stage POP. De novo urine incontinence appears to be more common in the Surelift group than in the Surelift-A group. We found good anatomical outcomes and subjective relief in both study groups, with a low complication rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05940-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: Surelift is a transvaginal synthetic mesh (TVM) kit that is intended to treat anterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The kit can be configured to use an anterior-apical (Surelift) or anterior (Surelift A) approach. The aims of this study were to evaluate the short-term objective and subjective outcomes of the different approaches at the 1-year follow-up.

Methods: From June 2018 to April 2021, a total of 280 patients with symptomatic advanced POP (stages III and IV) had surgery with the Surelift or Surelift A. The primary outcome was postoperative de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI), as well as subjective evaluation based on the Urinary Distress Inventory 6 (question 3 score > 1) and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire 7, during the 1-year follow-up period. Secondary outcomes measured quality of life, the presence of lower urinary tract symptoms, and complications.

Results: In total, 265 patients were assessed. Among these, 137 had Surelift, whereas 128 underwent Surelift A with SSF. At 1-year postoperative follow-up, de novo urodynamic stress incontinence occurred more frequently in the Surelift group than in the Surelift-A group (28.8% vs 9.1% respectively, p = 0.012). Additionally, Surelift patients had a higher rate of de novo SUI than Surelift A (33.2 vs 11.4 respectively, p = 0.013). Both study groups experienced improvements in their quality of life indicators.

Conclusions: The Surelift device is a safe and effective technique of treating advanced-stage POP. De novo urine incontinence appears to be more common in the Surelift group than in the Surelift-A group. We found good anatomical outcomes and subjective relief in both study groups, with a low complication rate.

经阴道盆腔脏器脱垂手术中的前腹腔网片(Surelift)与前腹腔网片(Surelift-A)比较:经阴道盆腔脏器脱垂手术中前腹腔网片(Surelift)与前腹腔网片(Surelift-A)的比较:1 年随访的手术和功能结果
导言和假设:Surelift 是一种经阴道合成网片 (TVM) 套件,用于治疗前部和顶部盆腔器官脱垂 (POP)。该套件可配置为前腹腔-腹腔(Surelift)或前腹腔(Surelift A)方法。本研究的目的是评估不同方法在随访 1 年后的短期客观和主观效果:主要结果是术后新发压力性尿失禁(SUI),以及随访1年期间基于尿压力量表6(问题3得分>1)和尿失禁影响问卷7的主观评价。次要结果包括生活质量、下尿路症状和并发症:共有 265 名患者接受了评估。结果:共有 265 名患者接受了评估,其中 137 人接受了 Surelift,128 人接受了 Surelift A 和 SSF。在术后一年的随访中,Surelift 组出现新的尿动力压力性尿失禁的频率高于 Surelift-A 组(分别为 28.8% 对 9.1%,P = 0.012)。此外,Surelift 患者的新发 SUI 发生率高于 Surelift A 组(分别为 33.2 对 11.4,P = 0.013)。两组患者的生活质量指标均有所改善:结论:Surelift 装置是治疗晚期 POP 的一种安全有效的技术。结论:Surelift 装置是治疗晚期 POP 的安全、有效的技术,与 Surelift-A 组相比,Surelift 组的新发尿失禁似乎更为常见。我们发现这两个研究组都取得了良好的解剖效果和主观缓解,并发症发生率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信