{"title":"比较腹腔镜下胸腔镜固定术和骶骶固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mohammadamin Parsaei, Alireza Hadizadeh, Shiva Hadizadeh, Azadeh Tarafdari","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2025.02.014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess and compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pectopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in managing pelvic organ prolapse.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase was conducted on July 3, 2024, using the search terms \"Pectopexy\" AND \"Laparoscop*\" with no publication date restrictions. Additional sources included citation screening and searches in Google Scholar and ProQuest.</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>We included all peer-reviewed, English full-text articles comparing intraoperative, short-term (up to six months), or long-term (six to twelve months) outcomes for laparoscopic pectopexy and sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse management.</p><p><strong>Tabulation, integration, and results: </strong>Our electronic search identified 269 records, of which 11 were deemed eligible after thorough screening. No additional eligible articles were found through a manual search. The final review included 11 studies, comprising 1,043 patients across four randomized controlled trials, six retrospective studies, and one prospective cohort. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Findings showed lower operation time (Hedges's g = -.978 [-1.629, -.327]; p = .003) and blood loss (Hedges's g = -.658 [-1.160, -.155]; p = .010) in pectopexy, with comparable organ injury rates (p > .05) between procedures. Short-term results showed a shorter hospitalization duration for pectopexy (Hedges's g = -.213 [-.426, -.000]; p = .049), while post-surgery outcomes like urinary tract infection, and voiding dysfunction were similar across groups (p > .05). All long-term outcomes were comparable, including apical prolapse recurrence, mesh-related complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification system scores, constipation, urgency, stress urinary incontinence, dyspareunia, and patient satisfaction (p > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review highlights that laparoscopic pectopexy, despite its theoretical technical advantages, shows comparable intraoperative organ injury rates and similar urinary, defecation, and sexual function outcomes to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, pectopexy is linked to shorter operative times, less blood loss, and reduced post-operative hospitalization.</p>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic pectopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammadamin Parsaei, Alireza Hadizadeh, Shiva Hadizadeh, Azadeh Tarafdari\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmig.2025.02.014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess and compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pectopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in managing pelvic organ prolapse.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase was conducted on July 3, 2024, using the search terms \\\"Pectopexy\\\" AND \\\"Laparoscop*\\\" with no publication date restrictions. Additional sources included citation screening and searches in Google Scholar and ProQuest.</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>We included all peer-reviewed, English full-text articles comparing intraoperative, short-term (up to six months), or long-term (six to twelve months) outcomes for laparoscopic pectopexy and sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse management.</p><p><strong>Tabulation, integration, and results: </strong>Our electronic search identified 269 records, of which 11 were deemed eligible after thorough screening. No additional eligible articles were found through a manual search. The final review included 11 studies, comprising 1,043 patients across four randomized controlled trials, six retrospective studies, and one prospective cohort. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Findings showed lower operation time (Hedges's g = -.978 [-1.629, -.327]; p = .003) and blood loss (Hedges's g = -.658 [-1.160, -.155]; p = .010) in pectopexy, with comparable organ injury rates (p > .05) between procedures. Short-term results showed a shorter hospitalization duration for pectopexy (Hedges's g = -.213 [-.426, -.000]; p = .049), while post-surgery outcomes like urinary tract infection, and voiding dysfunction were similar across groups (p > .05). All long-term outcomes were comparable, including apical prolapse recurrence, mesh-related complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification system scores, constipation, urgency, stress urinary incontinence, dyspareunia, and patient satisfaction (p > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review highlights that laparoscopic pectopexy, despite its theoretical technical advantages, shows comparable intraoperative organ injury rates and similar urinary, defecation, and sexual function outcomes to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, pectopexy is linked to shorter operative times, less blood loss, and reduced post-operative hospitalization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2025.02.014\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2025.02.014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评价和比较腹腔镜下胸腔镜固定术与骶骶固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的疗效。数据来源:于2024年7月3日对PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus和Embase进行系统检索,检索词为“Pectopexy”和“腹腔镜*”,无发表日期限制。其他来源包括引文筛选和b谷歌Scholar和ProQuest中的搜索。研究方法选择:我们纳入了所有同行评审的英文全文文章,比较腹腔镜胸固定术和骶髋固定术在盆腔器官脱垂治疗中的术中、短期(长达6个月)或长期(6至12个月)结果。制表、整合和结果:我们的电子搜索确定了269条记录,其中11条经过彻底筛选后被认为是合格的。通过人工检索没有发现其他符合条件的文章。最终的综述包括11项研究,包括4项随机对照试验、6项回顾性研究和1项前瞻性队列研究的1043名患者。采用随机效应模型进行meta分析。结果显示手术时间缩短(Hedges's g = -)。[-1.629, - 0.327];p = .003)和失血(赫奇斯的g = -)。[-1.160, - 0.155];P = .010),两种手术间器官损伤率比较(P > .05)。短期结果显示胸椎钉的住院时间较短(Hedges's g = -)。213 -。426年,组织);P = .049),而术后尿路感染和排尿功能障碍等结果各组相似(P >.05)。所有长期结果均具有可比性,包括根尖脱垂复发、网格相关并发症、盆腔器官脱垂量化系统评分、便秘、急症、压力性尿失禁、性交困难和患者满意度(p < 0.05)。结论:本综述强调,尽管腹腔镜下胸固定术在理论上具有技术优势,但术中器官损伤率和泌尿、排便和性功能结果与腹腔镜骶骶固定术相似。然而,胸固定术与更短的手术时间、更少的出血量和更少的术后住院有关。
Comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic pectopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: To assess and compare the efficacy of laparoscopic pectopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in managing pelvic organ prolapse.
Data sources: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase was conducted on July 3, 2024, using the search terms "Pectopexy" AND "Laparoscop*" with no publication date restrictions. Additional sources included citation screening and searches in Google Scholar and ProQuest.
Methods of study selection: We included all peer-reviewed, English full-text articles comparing intraoperative, short-term (up to six months), or long-term (six to twelve months) outcomes for laparoscopic pectopexy and sacrocolpopexy in pelvic organ prolapse management.
Tabulation, integration, and results: Our electronic search identified 269 records, of which 11 were deemed eligible after thorough screening. No additional eligible articles were found through a manual search. The final review included 11 studies, comprising 1,043 patients across four randomized controlled trials, six retrospective studies, and one prospective cohort. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Findings showed lower operation time (Hedges's g = -.978 [-1.629, -.327]; p = .003) and blood loss (Hedges's g = -.658 [-1.160, -.155]; p = .010) in pectopexy, with comparable organ injury rates (p > .05) between procedures. Short-term results showed a shorter hospitalization duration for pectopexy (Hedges's g = -.213 [-.426, -.000]; p = .049), while post-surgery outcomes like urinary tract infection, and voiding dysfunction were similar across groups (p > .05). All long-term outcomes were comparable, including apical prolapse recurrence, mesh-related complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification system scores, constipation, urgency, stress urinary incontinence, dyspareunia, and patient satisfaction (p > .05).
Conclusion: This review highlights that laparoscopic pectopexy, despite its theoretical technical advantages, shows comparable intraoperative organ injury rates and similar urinary, defecation, and sexual function outcomes to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, pectopexy is linked to shorter operative times, less blood loss, and reduced post-operative hospitalization.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.