• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay management for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study

V. Kalis, M. Smazinka, Z. Rusavy, M. Blaganje, M. Havir, L. Havelkova, K. Ismail,

. 2020 ; 244 (-) : 60-65. [pub] 20191109

Jazyk angličtina Země Irsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc20028637

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to assess the clinical feasibility of a policy where laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is the default procedure for the management of a significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (a-POP). As a secondary aim, we wanted to evaluate LSC outcomes in relation to women's preoperative assessment of their surgical fitness using the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) categorization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A university affiliated urogynecology center. METHODS: All women with symptomatic a-POP (C ≥ -1) who attended the urogynecology clinic between the 1st of January and the 31st of December 2016 and had their surgery by the 31st of May 2017 were included in the study. In our unit, routine follow-up appointments are arranged at 3 and 12 months post LSC. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative and mesh-related complications were assessed based on the Dindo-Clavien and IUGA/ICS classifications respectively. The preoperative outcome measures included Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and ASA-PS score. At follow-up women were asked to complete a PFDI, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), had their POP-Q staging and ultrasonographic assessment of mesh position and placement. The above measures are routinely collected as part of our standard practice. A preoperative ASA-PS score of <3 was used as a cut-off to dichotomies participants into low and high risk. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 220 women attended our center during the study period because of POP. Of these, 146 women were diagnosed with a significant a-POP and 142 (97.2 %) women opted for a surgical repair. Of the 142 women, 128 (90.1 %) were deemed suitable for a type of LSC and 121 had their surgery before the 31st of May 2017. There were no statistically significant differences in any of our collected perioperative, clinical, patient reported or ultrasonographic outcome measures when comparing women with ASA-PS scores of <3 or ≥3. CONCLUSION: In a specialized urogynecology healthcare setting, it is feasible and safe to rely on LSC as the mainstay surgical procedure for the repair of a significant a-POP. However, it is imperative to ensure that technical skills and equipment requirements are fulfilled and maintained.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc20028637
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210114154529.0
007      
ta
008      
210105s2020 ie f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.049 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)31747633
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ie
100    1_
$a Kalis, Vladimir $u Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
245    10
$a Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay management for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study / $c V. Kalis, M. Smazinka, Z. Rusavy, M. Blaganje, M. Havir, L. Havelkova, K. Ismail,
520    9_
$a STUDY OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to assess the clinical feasibility of a policy where laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is the default procedure for the management of a significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (a-POP). As a secondary aim, we wanted to evaluate LSC outcomes in relation to women's preoperative assessment of their surgical fitness using the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) categorization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A university affiliated urogynecology center. METHODS: All women with symptomatic a-POP (C ≥ -1) who attended the urogynecology clinic between the 1st of January and the 31st of December 2016 and had their surgery by the 31st of May 2017 were included in the study. In our unit, routine follow-up appointments are arranged at 3 and 12 months post LSC. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative and mesh-related complications were assessed based on the Dindo-Clavien and IUGA/ICS classifications respectively. The preoperative outcome measures included Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and ASA-PS score. At follow-up women were asked to complete a PFDI, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), had their POP-Q staging and ultrasonographic assessment of mesh position and placement. The above measures are routinely collected as part of our standard practice. A preoperative ASA-PS score of <3 was used as a cut-off to dichotomies participants into low and high risk. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 220 women attended our center during the study period because of POP. Of these, 146 women were diagnosed with a significant a-POP and 142 (97.2 %) women opted for a surgical repair. Of the 142 women, 128 (90.1 %) were deemed suitable for a type of LSC and 121 had their surgery before the 31st of May 2017. There were no statistically significant differences in any of our collected perioperative, clinical, patient reported or ultrasonographic outcome measures when comparing women with ASA-PS scores of <3 or ≥3. CONCLUSION: In a specialized urogynecology healthcare setting, it is feasible and safe to rely on LSC as the mainstay surgical procedure for the repair of a significant a-POP. However, it is imperative to ensure that technical skills and equipment requirements are fulfilled and maintained.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a gynekologické chirurgické výkony $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D013509
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a laparoskopie $7 D010535
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a prolaps pánevních orgánů $x chirurgie $7 D056887
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Smazinka, Martin $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Rusavy, Zdenek $u Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Blaganje, Mija $u Divison of Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia.
700    1_
$a Havir, Martin $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Havelkova, Linda $u New Technologies - Research Centre, University of West Bohemia, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Ismail, Khaled $u Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Czech Republic. Electronic address: khaled.ismail@lfp.cuni.cz.
773    0_
$w MED00001632 $t European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology $x 1872-7654 $g Roč. 244, č. - (2020), s. 60-65
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31747633 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20210105 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210114154526 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1608972 $s 1119817
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 244 $c - $d 60-65 $e 20191109 $i 1872-7654 $m European journal of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology $n Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol $x MED00001632
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210105

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace