-
Something wrong with this record ?
Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy
M. Vidoman, V. Kalis, M. Smazinka, M. Havir, Z. Rusavy, KM. Ismail
Language English Country England, Great Britain
Document type Journal Article, Comparative Study
Grant support
Cooperatio program
lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy
research area MATC
lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy
Cooperatio program
Lékařská Fakulta v Plzni, Univerzita Karlova
research area MATC
Lékařská Fakulta v Plzni, Univerzita Karlova
NLK
ProQuest Central
from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
from 2010-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago
- MeSH
- Surgical Mesh * adverse effects MeSH
- Gynecologic Surgical Procedures * methods MeSH
- Patient Reported Outcome Measures MeSH
- Laparoscopy methods adverse effects MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Postoperative Complications etiology epidemiology MeSH
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse * surgery MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: It is reported that up to 60% of women would prefer to spare their uterus during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery. A reliable hysteropexy technique is therefore crucial. We aimed to describe the safety profile and initial core patient-reported and clinical outcomes of the Pilsner modification of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS) in comparison with the laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy technique (standard laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy [sLSH]) previously used in our unit. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary referral urogynecological center. All patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy between 1 January 2015, and 31 January 2022 were included in the study. Follow-up clinical, patient-reported, and imaging outcomes at the 12-month follow-up time point are presented. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included. Of these, 49 (56.3%) and 38 (43.7%) underwent sLSH and PiMMS respectively. Low numbers of perioperative complications were found in both groups with no mesh-related complications reported following PiMMS up to 12 months postoperatively. There were no apical compartment failures in either group. There were 8 (17.0%) vs 1 (2.7%) anterior compartment failures (Ba ≤ -1) in the sLSH and PiMMS groups respectively (p = 0.07) at 12 months. At the 1-year follow-up, 42 (89.4%) patients reported a Patient Global Impression of Improvement score of ≤ 2 in the sLSH groups compared with 35 (94.6%) patients following PiMMS. CONCLUSIONS: The PiMMS technique seems to have comparable safety profile and patient-reported outcomes with the sLSH technique. However, there is a trend toward reduced anterior compartment failures with this modification. The findings of this preliminary report need to be re-evaluated in a well-powered prospective study.
Biomedical Centre Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen Charles University Staré Město Czechia
Center for Pelvic Floor Disorders Pilsen Czechia
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics Faculty Hospital Trenčín Slovakia
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics University Hospital Pilsen Czechia
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc24019994
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20241024110918.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 241015s2024 enk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s00192-024-05780-w $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)38691124
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a enk
- 100 1_
- $a Vidoman, Matej $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty Hospital, Trenčín, Slovakia $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia
- 245 10
- $a Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy / $c M. Vidoman, V. Kalis, M. Smazinka, M. Havir, Z. Rusavy, KM. Ismail
- 520 9_
- $a INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: It is reported that up to 60% of women would prefer to spare their uterus during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery. A reliable hysteropexy technique is therefore crucial. We aimed to describe the safety profile and initial core patient-reported and clinical outcomes of the Pilsner modification of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS) in comparison with the laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy technique (standard laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy [sLSH]) previously used in our unit. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary referral urogynecological center. All patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy between 1 January 2015, and 31 January 2022 were included in the study. Follow-up clinical, patient-reported, and imaging outcomes at the 12-month follow-up time point are presented. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included. Of these, 49 (56.3%) and 38 (43.7%) underwent sLSH and PiMMS respectively. Low numbers of perioperative complications were found in both groups with no mesh-related complications reported following PiMMS up to 12 months postoperatively. There were no apical compartment failures in either group. There were 8 (17.0%) vs 1 (2.7%) anterior compartment failures (Ba ≤ -1) in the sLSH and PiMMS groups respectively (p = 0.07) at 12 months. At the 1-year follow-up, 42 (89.4%) patients reported a Patient Global Impression of Improvement score of ≤ 2 in the sLSH groups compared with 35 (94.6%) patients following PiMMS. CONCLUSIONS: The PiMMS technique seems to have comparable safety profile and patient-reported outcomes with the sLSH technique. However, there is a trend toward reduced anterior compartment failures with this modification. The findings of this preliminary report need to be re-evaluated in a well-powered prospective study.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 12
- $a chirurgické síťky $x škodlivé účinky $7 D013526
- 650 12
- $a prolaps pánevních orgánů $x chirurgie $7 D056887
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 12
- $a gynekologické chirurgické výkony $x metody $7 D013509
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 650 _2
- $a laparoskopie $x metody $x škodlivé účinky $7 D010535
- 650 _2
- $a pooperační komplikace $x etiologie $x epidemiologie $7 D011183
- 650 _2
- $a hodnocení výsledků péče pacientem $7 D000071066
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 700 1_
- $a Kalis, Vladimir $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czechia $u Center for Pelvic-Floor Disorders, Pilsen, Czechia
- 700 1_
- $a Smazinka, Martin $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czechia $u Center for Pelvic-Floor Disorders, Pilsen, Czechia
- 700 1_
- $a Havir, Martin $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czechia $u Center for Pelvic-Floor Disorders, Pilsen, Czechia
- 700 1_
- $a Rusavy, Zdenek $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University Hospital, Pilsen, Czechia $u Center for Pelvic-Floor Disorders, Pilsen, Czechia
- 700 1_
- $a Ismail, Khaled M $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Alej Svobody 76, 304 60, Pilsen, Czechia. khaled.ismail@lfp.cuni.cz $u Biomedical Centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Staré Město, Czechia. khaled.ismail@lfp.cuni.cz
- 773 0_
- $w MED00002395 $t International urogynecology journal $x 1433-3023 $g Roč. 35, č. 6 (2024), s. 1155-1162
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38691124 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20241015 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20241024110912 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2202309 $s 1231967
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 35 $c 6 $d 1155-1162 $e 20240501 $i 1433-3023 $m International urogynecology journal $n Int Urogynecol J $x MED00002395
- GRA __
- $a Cooperatio program $p lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy
- GRA __
- $a research area MATC $p lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy
- GRA __
- $a Cooperatio program $p Lékařská Fakulta v Plzni, Univerzita Karlova
- GRA __
- $a research area MATC $p Lékařská Fakulta v Plzni, Univerzita Karlova
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20241015
