膀胱阴道瘘修补中耻骨尾骨吊带与耻骨颈筋膜再固定:回顾性回顾。

IF 1.6 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Obstetrics and Gynecology International Pub Date : 2018-10-31 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2018/6396387
Rachel Pope, Prakash Ganesh, Jeffrey Wilkinson
{"title":"膀胱阴道瘘修补中耻骨尾骨吊带与耻骨颈筋膜再固定:回顾性回顾。","authors":"Rachel Pope,&nbsp;Prakash Ganesh,&nbsp;Jeffrey Wilkinson","doi":"10.1155/2018/6396387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Urethral incontinence is an issue for approximately 10-15% of women with an obstetric fistula. Various surgical interventions to prevent this exist, including the pubococcygeal sling and refixation of the pubocervical fascia. Neither has been evaluated in comparison to one another. Therefore, this retrospective evaluation for superiority was performed. The primary outcome was urinary stress incontinence, and secondary outcomes were operative factors. There were 185 PC slings, but 12 were excluded because of urethral plications. There were 50 RPCF procedures, but 3 were excluded because of urethral plications. Finally, there were 32 cases with both PC sling and RPCF procedures. All groups demonstrated a higher than expected fistula repair rate with negative dye tests in 84% of the PC sling group, 89.9% in the RPCF group, and 93.8% in the RPCF and PC groups. There were no statistically significant differences found in continence status between the three groups. Of those who underwent PC slings, 49% were found to have residual stress incontinence. Of those who underwent RPCF, 47.8% had stress incontinence. Of those with both techniques, 43.8% had residual stress incontinence. Pad weight was not significantly different between the groups. As there is no statistically significant difference, we cannot recommend one procedure over the other as an anti-incontinence procedure. The use of both simultaneously is worth investigating.</p>","PeriodicalId":19439,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynecology International","volume":"2018 ","pages":"6396387"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2018/6396387","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pubococcygeal Sling versus Refixation of the Pubocervical Fascia in Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair: A Retrospective Review.\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Pope,&nbsp;Prakash Ganesh,&nbsp;Jeffrey Wilkinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2018/6396387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Urethral incontinence is an issue for approximately 10-15% of women with an obstetric fistula. Various surgical interventions to prevent this exist, including the pubococcygeal sling and refixation of the pubocervical fascia. Neither has been evaluated in comparison to one another. Therefore, this retrospective evaluation for superiority was performed. The primary outcome was urinary stress incontinence, and secondary outcomes were operative factors. There were 185 PC slings, but 12 were excluded because of urethral plications. There were 50 RPCF procedures, but 3 were excluded because of urethral plications. Finally, there were 32 cases with both PC sling and RPCF procedures. All groups demonstrated a higher than expected fistula repair rate with negative dye tests in 84% of the PC sling group, 89.9% in the RPCF group, and 93.8% in the RPCF and PC groups. There were no statistically significant differences found in continence status between the three groups. Of those who underwent PC slings, 49% were found to have residual stress incontinence. Of those who underwent RPCF, 47.8% had stress incontinence. Of those with both techniques, 43.8% had residual stress incontinence. Pad weight was not significantly different between the groups. As there is no statistically significant difference, we cannot recommend one procedure over the other as an anti-incontinence procedure. The use of both simultaneously is worth investigating.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19439,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Obstetrics and Gynecology International\",\"volume\":\"2018 \",\"pages\":\"6396387\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2018/6396387\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Obstetrics and Gynecology International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6396387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics and Gynecology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6396387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

尿道失禁是一个问题,大约10-15%的妇女与产科瘘。有多种手术干预措施可以预防这种情况,包括耻骨尾骨悬吊和耻骨颈筋膜再固定。两者都没有被比较过。因此,我们进行了回顾性的优越性评价。主要结局为尿压力性失禁,次要结局为手术因素。PC吊带185例,其中12例因尿道狭窄而被排除。有50例RPCF手术,其中3例因尿道狭窄而被排除。最后,有32例同时采用PC吊索和RPCF手术。所有组的染色试验阴性瘘管修复率均高于预期,PC吊索组为84%,RPCF组为89.9%,RPCF和PC组为93.8%。三组患者的尿失禁状况无统计学差异。在接受PC吊带的患者中,49%的人发现有残余应力性尿失禁。在接受RPCF的患者中,47.8%的患者出现了压力性尿失禁。在使用两种技术的患者中,43.8%存在残余应力性尿失禁。垫重组间差异无统计学意义。由于没有统计学上的显著差异,我们不能推荐一种手术优于另一种手术作为反尿失禁手术。两者同时使用值得研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Pubococcygeal Sling versus Refixation of the Pubocervical Fascia in Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair: A Retrospective Review.

Pubococcygeal Sling versus Refixation of the Pubocervical Fascia in Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair: A Retrospective Review.

Pubococcygeal Sling versus Refixation of the Pubocervical Fascia in Vesicovaginal Fistula Repair: A Retrospective Review.

Urethral incontinence is an issue for approximately 10-15% of women with an obstetric fistula. Various surgical interventions to prevent this exist, including the pubococcygeal sling and refixation of the pubocervical fascia. Neither has been evaluated in comparison to one another. Therefore, this retrospective evaluation for superiority was performed. The primary outcome was urinary stress incontinence, and secondary outcomes were operative factors. There were 185 PC slings, but 12 were excluded because of urethral plications. There were 50 RPCF procedures, but 3 were excluded because of urethral plications. Finally, there were 32 cases with both PC sling and RPCF procedures. All groups demonstrated a higher than expected fistula repair rate with negative dye tests in 84% of the PC sling group, 89.9% in the RPCF group, and 93.8% in the RPCF and PC groups. There were no statistically significant differences found in continence status between the three groups. Of those who underwent PC slings, 49% were found to have residual stress incontinence. Of those who underwent RPCF, 47.8% had stress incontinence. Of those with both techniques, 43.8% had residual stress incontinence. Pad weight was not significantly different between the groups. As there is no statistically significant difference, we cannot recommend one procedure over the other as an anti-incontinence procedure. The use of both simultaneously is worth investigating.

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
Obstetrics and Gynecology International
Obstetrics and Gynecology International OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Obstetrics and Gynecology International is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that aims to provide a forum for scientists and clinical professionals working in obstetrics and gynecology. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to obstetrics, maternal-fetal medicine, general gynecology, gynecologic oncology, uro-gynecology, reproductive medicine and infertility, reproductive endocrinology, and sexual medicine.
×
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