Aliya Meirmanova, Gulzhakhan Omarova, A. Kurmanova, Zhanara Begniyazova, A. Yuldasheva
{"title":"Surgical management of genital prolapse and combined gynecological pathologies in women: A meta-analysis","authors":"Aliya Meirmanova, Gulzhakhan Omarova, A. Kurmanova, Zhanara Begniyazova, A. Yuldasheva","doi":"10.29333/ejgm/12793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Prolapse can be fixed using a variety of surgical procedures. The goal of the present study was to examine the current literature on various surgical techniques for treating female genital organ prolapse.\nMethods: The PubMed and Medline databases were explored for pertinent literature up through August 2022 for this meta-analysis. The terms [surgery] AND [management] AND [genital prolapse OR gynaecological diseases] AND [randomised control studies OR randomised control trials] were used as search criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered qualified using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane handbook of “Systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.\nResults: The investigations found significant difference in the heterogeneity between the groups with a 76% I2 value (p<0.00001). There was little variability among the six trials that examined robotic and laparoscopic therapy of prolapse (I2=0%, p=0.94). In six investigations, the odd ratio revealed no statistically significant difference between groups (1.05; 95% CI, 0.52, 2.12). However, generally there were no appreciable differences between robotic and laparoscopic treatment of female prolapse. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.\nConclusion: According to this meta-analysis study, laparoscopic surgery performed better job of managing prolapse than abdominal surgery.","PeriodicalId":44930,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of General Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29333/ejgm/12793","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Prolapse can be fixed using a variety of surgical procedures. The goal of the present study was to examine the current literature on various surgical techniques for treating female genital organ prolapse.
Methods: The PubMed and Medline databases were explored for pertinent literature up through August 2022 for this meta-analysis. The terms [surgery] AND [management] AND [genital prolapse OR gynaecological diseases] AND [randomised control studies OR randomised control trials] were used as search criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered qualified using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane handbook of “Systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.
Results: The investigations found significant difference in the heterogeneity between the groups with a 76% I2 value (p<0.00001). There was little variability among the six trials that examined robotic and laparoscopic therapy of prolapse (I2=0%, p=0.94). In six investigations, the odd ratio revealed no statistically significant difference between groups (1.05; 95% CI, 0.52, 2.12). However, generally there were no appreciable differences between robotic and laparoscopic treatment of female prolapse. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.
Conclusion: According to this meta-analysis study, laparoscopic surgery performed better job of managing prolapse than abdominal surgery.