腹腔镜椎弓根切除术与标准腹腔镜椎弓根切除术治疗根尖脱垂的比较:一项探索性随机对照试验

IF 1.2 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Kavita Khoiwal, Kanhu Charan Dash, Amrita Gaurav, Jaya Chaturvedi
{"title":"腹腔镜椎弓根切除术与标准腹腔镜椎弓根切除术治疗根尖脱垂的比较:一项探索性随机对照试验","authors":"Kavita Khoiwal,&nbsp;Kanhu Charan Dash,&nbsp;Amrita Gaurav,&nbsp;Jaya Chaturvedi","doi":"10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2022-12-15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy in women with symptomatic apical prolapse.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An interim analysis of an exploratory randomized controlled trial with the primary objective of comparing mesh fixation time and secondary objectives were to compare total operating time, blood loss, and intra-operative and post-operative complications. Additionally, patients completed the Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) questionnaires before surgery and during six months follow-up visit to evaluate the overall improvement in quality of life and sexual function. Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score was calculated on the 7-10<sup>th</sup> day post-operatively and then at six months to assess the level of improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 30 patients; 15 underwent laparoscopic sacropexy, and 15 underwent laparoscopic pectopexy. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean duration of mesh fixation was significantly less with laparoscopic pectopexy (45.00±11.34 minutes) than laparoscopic sacropexy (54.67±9.35 minutes) (p=0.019). The total operating time and blood loss tended to be less in the pectopexy group, but not significantly so. Only one patient in the pectopexy group had a bladder injury. No patient in either group had any post-operative complications. One case in each group had a relapse of apical prolapse. All the domains of PISQ-12, P-QOL, and PGI-I scores improved significantly after both procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparoscopic pectopexy is a safe, feasible, and comfortable alternative procedure to the standard sacropexy for apical prolapse. We noted significantly less mesh fixation time and less operating time, while blood loss tended to be less with laparoscopic pectopexy than with laparoscopic sacropexy. Post-operative parameters were comparable between techniques. Both corrective techniques for prolapse improved the PGI-I, P-QOL, and PISQ-12 scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":17440,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bc/ad/JTGGA-24-144.PMC10493818.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy for apical prolapse: an exploratory randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Kavita Khoiwal,&nbsp;Kanhu Charan Dash,&nbsp;Amrita Gaurav,&nbsp;Jaya Chaturvedi\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2022-12-15\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy in women with symptomatic apical prolapse.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An interim analysis of an exploratory randomized controlled trial with the primary objective of comparing mesh fixation time and secondary objectives were to compare total operating time, blood loss, and intra-operative and post-operative complications. Additionally, patients completed the Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) questionnaires before surgery and during six months follow-up visit to evaluate the overall improvement in quality of life and sexual function. Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score was calculated on the 7-10<sup>th</sup> day post-operatively and then at six months to assess the level of improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 30 patients; 15 underwent laparoscopic sacropexy, and 15 underwent laparoscopic pectopexy. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean duration of mesh fixation was significantly less with laparoscopic pectopexy (45.00±11.34 minutes) than laparoscopic sacropexy (54.67±9.35 minutes) (p=0.019). The total operating time and blood loss tended to be less in the pectopexy group, but not significantly so. Only one patient in the pectopexy group had a bladder injury. No patient in either group had any post-operative complications. One case in each group had a relapse of apical prolapse. All the domains of PISQ-12, P-QOL, and PGI-I scores improved significantly after both procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparoscopic pectopexy is a safe, feasible, and comfortable alternative procedure to the standard sacropexy for apical prolapse. We noted significantly less mesh fixation time and less operating time, while blood loss tended to be less with laparoscopic pectopexy than with laparoscopic sacropexy. Post-operative parameters were comparable between techniques. Both corrective techniques for prolapse improved the PGI-I, P-QOL, and PISQ-12 scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bc/ad/JTGGA-24-144.PMC10493818.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2022-12-15\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2023.2022-12-15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较腹腔镜下胸椎固定术与标准腹腔镜下骶骨固定术治疗症状性根尖脱垂的疗效。材料和方法:一项探索性随机对照试验的中期分析,主要目的是比较补片固定时间,次要目的是比较总手术时间、出血量、术中和术后并发症。此外,患者在手术前和随访6个月期间完成脱垂生活质量(P-QOL)和盆腔器官脱垂/尿失禁性问卷(PISQ-12),评估整体生活质量和性功能的改善情况。术后7-10天计算患者整体改善印象(PGI-I)评分,6个月评估改善水平。结果:纳入30例患者;15例行腹腔镜骶固定术,15例行腹腔镜胸固定术。两组的基线特征具有可比性。腹腔镜下胸固定术的平均固定时间(45.00±11.34分钟)明显少于腹腔镜下骶固定术(54.67±9.35分钟)(p=0.019)。胸氧固定术组总手术时间和出血量有减少趋势,但差异不显著。胸固定术组仅有1例患者出现膀胱损伤。两组患者均无术后并发症发生。两组均有1例根尖脱垂复发。两种治疗后PISQ-12、P-QOL和PGI-I评分的所有领域均有显著改善。结论:腹腔镜胸椎固定术是治疗根尖脱垂的一种安全、可行、舒适的替代方法。我们注意到网片固定时间和手术时间明显减少,而腹腔镜胸固定术的出血量往往比腹腔镜骶固定术少。两种技术的术后参数具有可比性。两种脱垂矫正技术均可改善PGI-I、P-QOL和PISQ-12评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy for apical prolapse: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

Comparison of laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy for apical prolapse: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

Comparison of laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy for apical prolapse: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

Comparison of laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy for apical prolapse: an exploratory randomized controlled trial

Objective: To compare laparoscopic pectopexy with the standard laparoscopic sacropexy in women with symptomatic apical prolapse.

Material and methods: An interim analysis of an exploratory randomized controlled trial with the primary objective of comparing mesh fixation time and secondary objectives were to compare total operating time, blood loss, and intra-operative and post-operative complications. Additionally, patients completed the Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12) questionnaires before surgery and during six months follow-up visit to evaluate the overall improvement in quality of life and sexual function. Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score was calculated on the 7-10th day post-operatively and then at six months to assess the level of improvement.

Results: The study included 30 patients; 15 underwent laparoscopic sacropexy, and 15 underwent laparoscopic pectopexy. Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. The mean duration of mesh fixation was significantly less with laparoscopic pectopexy (45.00±11.34 minutes) than laparoscopic sacropexy (54.67±9.35 minutes) (p=0.019). The total operating time and blood loss tended to be less in the pectopexy group, but not significantly so. Only one patient in the pectopexy group had a bladder injury. No patient in either group had any post-operative complications. One case in each group had a relapse of apical prolapse. All the domains of PISQ-12, P-QOL, and PGI-I scores improved significantly after both procedures.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic pectopexy is a safe, feasible, and comfortable alternative procedure to the standard sacropexy for apical prolapse. We noted significantly less mesh fixation time and less operating time, while blood loss tended to be less with laparoscopic pectopexy than with laparoscopic sacropexy. Post-operative parameters were comparable between techniques. Both corrective techniques for prolapse improved the PGI-I, P-QOL, and PISQ-12 scores.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association is the official, open access publication of the Turkish-German Gynecological Education and Research Foundation and Turkish-German Gynecological Association and is published quarterly on March, June, September and December. It is an independent peer-reviewed international journal printed in English language. Manuscripts are reviewed in accordance with “double-blind peer review” process for both reviewers and authors. The target audience of Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association includes gynecologists and primary care physicians interested in gynecology practice. It publishes original works on all aspects of obstertrics and gynecology. The aim of Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association is to publish high quality original research articles. In addition to research articles, reviews, editorials, letters to the editor, diagnostic puzzle are also published. Suggestions for new books are also welcomed. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association does not charge any fee for article submission or processing.
×
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