Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Scoping Review.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Apiwat Jongjakapun, Teerayut Temtanakitpaisan, Jen Sothornwit, Porjai Pattanittum, Chetta Ngamjarus
{"title":"Pectopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Apiwat Jongjakapun, Teerayut Temtanakitpaisan, Jen Sothornwit, Porjai Pattanittum, Chetta Ngamjarus","doi":"10.1007/s00192-025-06232-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Pectopexy is an emerging surgical technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse, anchoring the prolapsed structure to the iliopectineal ligament. This review aims to systematically map the available evidence on pectopexy, including study characteristics, surgical techniques, and reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, and OpenGrey, alongside citation searches. Eligible studies included those assessing pectopexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP-Q stage ≥ 2). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and descriptive studies were included, while case reports and reviews were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers, with findings summarised through descriptive synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies (2715 women) were eligible, which included four RCTs (13.3%), 10 cohort studies (33.3%), and 16 descriptive studies (53.3%). Most studies were conducted in Asia (66.7%), high-income economies (46.7%), and in tertiary care centres (86.7%). Pectopexy was primarily performed laparoscopically (86.7%), with bilateral fixation (86.7%) and using polypropylene mesh (46.7%). Eighty-five unique outcomes were reported. Commonly reported perioperative outcomes included operative time (86.7%), blood loss (50.0%), and length of hospital stay (50.0%). Recurrence of apical prolapse (90.0%), stress urinary incontinence (60.0%), and complications related to fixation material (53.3%) were frequently documented. No studies reported recurrence of prolapse symptoms, and the most frequent patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) was P-QOL (23.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The reported pectopexy procedures and outcomes were heterogeneous. Current evidence is limited, particularly from RCTs and low-resource settings. Subjective outcomes and PROMs were underreported.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","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/s00192-025-06232-9","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: Pectopexy is an emerging surgical technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse, anchoring the prolapsed structure to the iliopectineal ligament. This review aims to systematically map the available evidence on pectopexy, including study characteristics, surgical techniques, and reported outcomes.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, ProQuest, and OpenGrey, alongside citation searches. Eligible studies included those assessing pectopexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP-Q stage ≥ 2). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and descriptive studies were included, while case reports and reviews were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were independently conducted by two reviewers, with findings summarised through descriptive synthesis.

Results: Thirty studies (2715 women) were eligible, which included four RCTs (13.3%), 10 cohort studies (33.3%), and 16 descriptive studies (53.3%). Most studies were conducted in Asia (66.7%), high-income economies (46.7%), and in tertiary care centres (86.7%). Pectopexy was primarily performed laparoscopically (86.7%), with bilateral fixation (86.7%) and using polypropylene mesh (46.7%). Eighty-five unique outcomes were reported. Commonly reported perioperative outcomes included operative time (86.7%), blood loss (50.0%), and length of hospital stay (50.0%). Recurrence of apical prolapse (90.0%), stress urinary incontinence (60.0%), and complications related to fixation material (53.3%) were frequently documented. No studies reported recurrence of prolapse symptoms, and the most frequent patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) was P-QOL (23.3%).

Conclusions: The reported pectopexy procedures and outcomes were heterogeneous. Current evidence is limited, particularly from RCTs and low-resource settings. Subjective outcomes and PROMs were underreported.

盆腔器官脱垂的胸固定术:范围回顾。
前言和假设:胸固定术是一种新兴的治疗盆腔器官脱垂的手术技术,将脱垂的结构固定在髂耻韧带上。这篇综述的目的是系统地绘制关于胸椎固定术的现有证据,包括研究特征、手术技术和报道的结果。方法:系统检索PubMed、Scopus、CENTRAL、CINAHL、LILACS、ClinicalTrials.gov、ProQuest和OpenGrey,并进行引文检索。符合条件的研究包括评估胸骨固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂(POP-Q分期≥2)的研究。纳入随机对照试验(RCTs)、队列研究和描述性研究,排除病例报告和综述。研究选择和数据提取由两位评论者独立进行,并通过描述性综合对研究结果进行总结。结果:30项研究(2715名女性)符合条件,包括4项rct(13.3%), 10项队列研究(33.3%)和16项描述性研究(53.3%)。大多数研究在亚洲(66.7%)、高收入经济体(46.7%)和三级保健中心(86.7%)进行。胸固定术主要在腹腔镜下进行(86.7%),双侧固定(86.7%),使用聚丙烯网片(46.7%)。报告了85个独特的结果。通常报告的围手术期结局包括手术时间(86.7%)、出血量(50.0%)和住院时间(50.0%)。根尖脱垂(90.0%)、压力性尿失禁(60.0%)和与固定材料相关的并发症(53.3%)是常见的复发病例。没有研究报告脱垂症状复发,最常见的患者报告的预后指标(PROM)是P-QOL(23.3%)。结论:报道的胸骨固定术的方法和结果是不一致的。目前的证据有限,特别是来自随机对照试验和低资源环境的证据。主观结果和PROMs被低估。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信