Postoperative Activity Restrictions After Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery.

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Alejandra Cacheiro Bofarull, Chris Elizabeth Philip, Gabriela Francis, Pedro Henrique Costa Matos da Silva, Chloe Koski, Linda Suk-Ling Murphy, Victoria Alzogaray, Olivia H Chang
{"title":"Postoperative Activity Restrictions After Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery.","authors":"Alejandra Cacheiro Bofarull, Chris Elizabeth Philip, Gabriela Francis, Pedro Henrique Costa Matos da Silva, Chloe Koski, Linda Suk-Ling Murphy, Victoria Alzogaray, Olivia H Chang","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Restrictive physical activity after pelvic reconstructive surgery is recommended, although the optimal duration and intensity are not standardized.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the existing literature comparing clinical outcomes for liberal postoperative physical activity versus standard of care, defined as restricted postoperative physical activity, after pelvic reconstructive surgery.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for observational and randomized studies comparing liberal postoperative physical activity and standard of care in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery, reporting anatomic and functional outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan software, presenting results as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio in a random-effects model, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five randomized trials, representing total n = 434, were included, with 2 studies on sling surgical procedures and 3 on prolapse surgical procedures. Data from 3 studies suggest no significant difference between liberal and standard postoperative instructions in surgical outcomes, measured by Point Ba from POP-Q assessment tool, up to 3 months follow-up (MD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.07; P = 0.49). Disease-specific symptom distress, measured by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20, favored the liberal approach (MD, -10.09; 95% CI, -18.33 to -1.86; P = 0.02). Other domains, including Urinary Distress Inventory-6, also showed significant improvements with liberal postoperative activities (MD, -4.29; 95% CI, -7.84 to -0.74; P = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with liberal postoperative physical activity recommendations in prolapse repair surgical procedures had similar short-term anatomic outcomes compared with standard restrictions, with more favorable outcomes in disease-specific symptom relief and quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Restrictive physical activity after pelvic reconstructive surgery is recommended, although the optimal duration and intensity are not standardized.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the existing literature comparing clinical outcomes for liberal postoperative physical activity versus standard of care, defined as restricted postoperative physical activity, after pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Study design: PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched for observational and randomized studies comparing liberal postoperative physical activity and standard of care in women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery, reporting anatomic and functional outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan software, presenting results as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio in a random-effects model, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Five randomized trials, representing total n = 434, were included, with 2 studies on sling surgical procedures and 3 on prolapse surgical procedures. Data from 3 studies suggest no significant difference between liberal and standard postoperative instructions in surgical outcomes, measured by Point Ba from POP-Q assessment tool, up to 3 months follow-up (MD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.07; P = 0.49). Disease-specific symptom distress, measured by Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20, favored the liberal approach (MD, -10.09; 95% CI, -18.33 to -1.86; P = 0.02). Other domains, including Urinary Distress Inventory-6, also showed significant improvements with liberal postoperative activities (MD, -4.29; 95% CI, -7.84 to -0.74; P = 0.02).

Conclusions: Patients with liberal postoperative physical activity recommendations in prolapse repair surgical procedures had similar short-term anatomic outcomes compared with standard restrictions, with more favorable outcomes in disease-specific symptom relief and quality of life.

骨盆重建手术后活动限制。
重要性:盆腔重建术后的限制性体育活动是推荐的,尽管最佳的持续时间和强度没有标准化。目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估现有文献,比较骨盆重建手术后自由运动与标准护理的临床结果,标准护理定义为术后限制运动。研究设计:检索PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science和CINAHL数据库,以比较骨盆重建手术妇女术后自由运动和标准护理的观察性和随机研究,报告解剖和功能结果。采用RevMan软件进行统计分析,结果以随机效应模型的平均差(MD)或比值比表示,置信区间为95%。结果:纳入5项随机试验,共n = 434,其中2项研究为吊带手术,3项研究为脱垂手术。来自3项研究的数据表明,在长达3个月的随访中,通过POP-Q评估工具的Ba点测量,自由和标准的术后指导在手术结果方面没有显著差异(MD, -0.04;95% CI, -0.16 ~ 0.07;P = 0.49)。盆底窘迫量表-20测量的疾病特异性症状窘迫倾向于自由方法(MD, -10.09;95% CI, -18.33 ~ -1.86;P = 0.02)。其他领域,包括尿窘迫量表-6,也显示出术后自由活动的显著改善(MD, -4.29;95% CI, -7.84 ~ -0.74;P = 0.02)。结论:与标准限制相比,脱垂修复手术中接受自由运动建议的患者具有相似的短期解剖结果,在疾病特异性症状缓解和生活质量方面具有更有利的结果。
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
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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