网状腹腔镜骶子宫切除术后出血,罕见的并发症?

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Kianoush Zarrindej, Matthew Izett-Kay, Simon Jackson, Natalia Price
{"title":"网状腹腔镜骶子宫切除术后出血,罕见的并发症?","authors":"Kianoush Zarrindej, Matthew Izett-Kay, Simon Jackson, Natalia Price","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"L aparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) is an increasingly popular surgical option for the management of uterine prolapse. For women in whom first-line conservative measures fail, it has evolved as an alternative to the vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, to date the preferred surgical approach. However, vaginal hysterectomy is known to be associated with a high risk of recurrent prolapse with reoperation rates as high as 30%, laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy offerswomen the additional option of uterine preservation. A mesh prosthesis is generally used for abdominal hysteropexy, following on from U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 2002 of mesh devices for prolapse. Such abdominal mesh-augmented approaches were adopted to try and address the issue of high rates of reoperation with native tissue repair. Although approaches to LSH continue to evolve as the field advances, the Oxford technique involves cervical encerclage. This theoretically reduces the risk of mesh avulsion from the cervix, but more importantly avoids the placement of mesh in direct contact with the vagina, in an attempt to avoid vaginal mesh extrusion. The role of mesh-augmented prolapse surgery has been subject to scrutiny and attention given the risk of mesh-associated complications, which are particularly high after transvaginal placement of mesh. The recent large multicenter randomized controlled trial, the Prolapse Surgery: Pragmatic Evaluation and Randomised Controlled Trials (PROSPECT) study, compared synthetic and biological graft-augmented prolapse repair against native tissue techniques. The study found no improvement in outcomes with regard to effectiveness or quality of life with the use of transvaginal mesh, however, 1 in 10 women had some form of mesh complication. This corroborates concerns raised by various independent governmental reports in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Reports have highlighted complications, including mesh exposure or extrusion, vaginal bleeding or discharge, pain, dyspareunia, and bladder and bowel symptoms. There are also reports of neuromuscular sequelae, vaginal scarring, and shrinkage of the mesh implant. These findings highlight the need to critically appraise the risk of mesh-associated complications after all forms of mesh-augmented prolapse surgery. To date, there are limited publications detailing the complications that can occur after LSH. Our recent multicenter crosssectional study of 1,121 women who underwent LSH found an","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"27 12","pages":"e701-e704"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hematometra After Mesh Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy, a Rare Complication?\",\"authors\":\"Kianoush Zarrindej, Matthew Izett-Kay, Simon Jackson, Natalia Price\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"L aparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) is an increasingly popular surgical option for the management of uterine prolapse. For women in whom first-line conservative measures fail, it has evolved as an alternative to the vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, to date the preferred surgical approach. However, vaginal hysterectomy is known to be associated with a high risk of recurrent prolapse with reoperation rates as high as 30%, laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy offerswomen the additional option of uterine preservation. A mesh prosthesis is generally used for abdominal hysteropexy, following on from U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 2002 of mesh devices for prolapse. Such abdominal mesh-augmented approaches were adopted to try and address the issue of high rates of reoperation with native tissue repair. Although approaches to LSH continue to evolve as the field advances, the Oxford technique involves cervical encerclage. This theoretically reduces the risk of mesh avulsion from the cervix, but more importantly avoids the placement of mesh in direct contact with the vagina, in an attempt to avoid vaginal mesh extrusion. The role of mesh-augmented prolapse surgery has been subject to scrutiny and attention given the risk of mesh-associated complications, which are particularly high after transvaginal placement of mesh. The recent large multicenter randomized controlled trial, the Prolapse Surgery: Pragmatic Evaluation and Randomised Controlled Trials (PROSPECT) study, compared synthetic and biological graft-augmented prolapse repair against native tissue techniques. The study found no improvement in outcomes with regard to effectiveness or quality of life with the use of transvaginal mesh, however, 1 in 10 women had some form of mesh complication. This corroborates concerns raised by various independent governmental reports in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Reports have highlighted complications, including mesh exposure or extrusion, vaginal bleeding or discharge, pain, dyspareunia, and bladder and bowel symptoms. There are also reports of neuromuscular sequelae, vaginal scarring, and shrinkage of the mesh implant. These findings highlight the need to critically appraise the risk of mesh-associated complications after all forms of mesh-augmented prolapse surgery. To date, there are limited publications detailing the complications that can occur after LSH. Our recent multicenter crosssectional study of 1,121 women who underwent LSH found an\",\"PeriodicalId\":48831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"volume\":\"27 12\",\"pages\":\"e701-e704\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001107\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001107","RegionNum":4,"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

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hematometra After Mesh Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy, a Rare Complication?
L aparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) is an increasingly popular surgical option for the management of uterine prolapse. For women in whom first-line conservative measures fail, it has evolved as an alternative to the vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, to date the preferred surgical approach. However, vaginal hysterectomy is known to be associated with a high risk of recurrent prolapse with reoperation rates as high as 30%, laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy offerswomen the additional option of uterine preservation. A mesh prosthesis is generally used for abdominal hysteropexy, following on from U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 2002 of mesh devices for prolapse. Such abdominal mesh-augmented approaches were adopted to try and address the issue of high rates of reoperation with native tissue repair. Although approaches to LSH continue to evolve as the field advances, the Oxford technique involves cervical encerclage. This theoretically reduces the risk of mesh avulsion from the cervix, but more importantly avoids the placement of mesh in direct contact with the vagina, in an attempt to avoid vaginal mesh extrusion. The role of mesh-augmented prolapse surgery has been subject to scrutiny and attention given the risk of mesh-associated complications, which are particularly high after transvaginal placement of mesh. The recent large multicenter randomized controlled trial, the Prolapse Surgery: Pragmatic Evaluation and Randomised Controlled Trials (PROSPECT) study, compared synthetic and biological graft-augmented prolapse repair against native tissue techniques. The study found no improvement in outcomes with regard to effectiveness or quality of life with the use of transvaginal mesh, however, 1 in 10 women had some form of mesh complication. This corroborates concerns raised by various independent governmental reports in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Reports have highlighted complications, including mesh exposure or extrusion, vaginal bleeding or discharge, pain, dyspareunia, and bladder and bowel symptoms. There are also reports of neuromuscular sequelae, vaginal scarring, and shrinkage of the mesh implant. These findings highlight the need to critically appraise the risk of mesh-associated complications after all forms of mesh-augmented prolapse surgery. To date, there are limited publications detailing the complications that can occur after LSH. Our recent multicenter crosssectional study of 1,121 women who underwent LSH found an
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
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
228
期刊介绍: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.
×
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