单侧根尖悬吊和腹腔镜骶colpop固定术对根尖脱垂女性患者预后的影响:随机试验。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Botagoz Aitbayeva, Serik Iskakov, Elena Lushchaeva, Galymzhan Toktarbekov, Kamilla Kenbayeva
{"title":"单侧根尖悬吊和腹腔镜骶colpop固定术对根尖脱垂女性患者预后的影响:随机试验。","authors":"Botagoz Aitbayeva,&nbsp;Serik Iskakov,&nbsp;Elena Lushchaeva,&nbsp;Galymzhan Toktarbekov,&nbsp;Kamilla Kenbayeva","doi":"10.5603/GP.a2023.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the use of unilateral apical sling versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of the apical form of pelvic organ prolapse in women. M: aterial and methods:A prospective, single-center randomized trial included 100 patients who were alternately assigned to treatment. Each patient had a ≥ III stage of apical or anterior-apical prolapse determined by the POP-Q system. 45 accepted for unilateral apical sling (UAS)and 55 accepted for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS). Data were compared by the One-way ANOVA test using IBM SPSS stats 19.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean operating time was significantly greater in the LS group versus UAS group, 194.6 vs 42.4 minutes, respectively (p < 0.05). The amount of intraoperative bleeding was significantly higher in the UAS group, compared to the LS group (p = 0.01). Within the follow-up period, 2 patients in UAS group and 3 patients in LS group (4.4% vs 5.4%, respectively; p = 0.9) had recurrent cystocoele. HRQoL and sexual outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>s:Our data demonstrate the non-superiority one on each other of the two different approaches, except in terms of shorter operating time and higher intraoperative bleeding when UAS used. These findings raise questions about the need for long-term results of quality of life outcomes for women with genital prolapse, especially in resource-limited settings similar to Kazakhstan.</p>","PeriodicalId":12727,"journal":{"name":"Ginekologia polska","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of unilateral apical sling and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on the outcome in women with apical prolapse: randomised trial.\",\"authors\":\"Botagoz Aitbayeva,&nbsp;Serik Iskakov,&nbsp;Elena Lushchaeva,&nbsp;Galymzhan Toktarbekov,&nbsp;Kamilla Kenbayeva\",\"doi\":\"10.5603/GP.a2023.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the use of unilateral apical sling versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of the apical form of pelvic organ prolapse in women. M: aterial and methods:A prospective, single-center randomized trial included 100 patients who were alternately assigned to treatment. Each patient had a ≥ III stage of apical or anterior-apical prolapse determined by the POP-Q system. 45 accepted for unilateral apical sling (UAS)and 55 accepted for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS). Data were compared by the One-way ANOVA test using IBM SPSS stats 19.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean operating time was significantly greater in the LS group versus UAS group, 194.6 vs 42.4 minutes, respectively (p < 0.05). The amount of intraoperative bleeding was significantly higher in the UAS group, compared to the LS group (p = 0.01). Within the follow-up period, 2 patients in UAS group and 3 patients in LS group (4.4% vs 5.4%, respectively; p = 0.9) had recurrent cystocoele. HRQoL and sexual outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>s:Our data demonstrate the non-superiority one on each other of the two different approaches, except in terms of shorter operating time and higher intraoperative bleeding when UAS used. These findings raise questions about the need for long-term results of quality of life outcomes for women with genital prolapse, especially in resource-limited settings similar to Kazakhstan.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ginekologia polska\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ginekologia polska\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2023.0002\",\"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":"Ginekologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2023.0002","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

目的:本研究的目的是比较使用单侧根尖吊带与腹腔镜骶colpop固定术治疗女性盆腔器官脱垂的根尖形式。材料和方法:一项前瞻性、单中心随机试验包括100名患者,他们交替被分配到治疗组。每个患者都有≥III期的根尖或根尖前脱垂,由POP-Q系统确定。45例接受单侧根尖吊带(UAS), 55例接受腹腔镜骶colpop固定术(LS)。数据比较采用IBM SPSS stats进行单因素方差分析19。结果:LS组平均手术时间194.6 min显著高于UAS组(42.4 min),差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。UAS组术中出血量明显高于LS组(p = 0.01)。随访期间,UAS组2例,LS组3例(分别为4.4% vs 5.4%);P = 0.9)有复发性膀胱膨出。HRQoL和性结局在两个治疗组之间没有显著差异。结论:我们的数据显示两种不同的入路除了使用UAS时手术时间更短、术中出血量更高外,在其他方面没有优势。这些发现提出了对生殖脱垂妇女生活质量结果的长期结果的需要的问题,特别是在像哈萨克斯坦这样资源有限的环境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of unilateral apical sling and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on the outcome in women with apical prolapse: randomised trial.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the use of unilateral apical sling versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of the apical form of pelvic organ prolapse in women. M: aterial and methods:A prospective, single-center randomized trial included 100 patients who were alternately assigned to treatment. Each patient had a ≥ III stage of apical or anterior-apical prolapse determined by the POP-Q system. 45 accepted for unilateral apical sling (UAS)and 55 accepted for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS). Data were compared by the One-way ANOVA test using IBM SPSS stats 19.

Results: Mean operating time was significantly greater in the LS group versus UAS group, 194.6 vs 42.4 minutes, respectively (p < 0.05). The amount of intraoperative bleeding was significantly higher in the UAS group, compared to the LS group (p = 0.01). Within the follow-up period, 2 patients in UAS group and 3 patients in LS group (4.4% vs 5.4%, respectively; p = 0.9) had recurrent cystocoele. HRQoL and sexual outcomes did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups.

Conclusion: s:Our data demonstrate the non-superiority one on each other of the two different approaches, except in terms of shorter operating time and higher intraoperative bleeding when UAS used. These findings raise questions about the need for long-term results of quality of life outcomes for women with genital prolapse, especially in resource-limited settings similar to Kazakhstan.

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
Ginekologia polska
Ginekologia polska OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
15.40%
发文量
317
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Ginekologia Polska’ is a monthly medical journal published in Polish and English language. ‘Ginekologia Polska’ will accept submissions relating to any aspect of gynaecology, obstetrics and areas directly related. ‘Ginekologia Polska’ publishes original contributions, comparative works, case studies, letters to the editor and many other categories of articles.
×
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