Voiding difficulties after vaginal mesh cystocele repair: does the perivesical dissection matter?
Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie, Anglie Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, pozorovací studie, práce podpořená grantem
- MeSH
- chirurgické síťky škodlivé účinky MeSH
- cystokéla chirurgie MeSH
- gynekologické chirurgické výkony škodlivé účinky MeSH
- incidence MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- ligamenta chirurgie MeSH
- poruchy močení epidemiologie MeSH
- retence moči epidemiologie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- rizikové faktory MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- pozorovací studie MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Our purpose was to verify whether extensive dissection toward the sacrospinous ligament (SSL) needed for mesh fixation during anterior compartment repair increases the risk of postoperative voiding difficulties. METHODS: A total of 124 patients after anterior compartment mesh repair without simultaneous suburethral sling placement operated on in the period 2005-2012 were enrolled in this retrospective observational study. Patients with previous anti-incontinence surgery with normal urodynamics were not excluded; 30 patients with incomplete data, severe perioperative complications, and urinary retention before and after the surgery were excluded. Urinary retention was defined as post-void residual over 150 ml more than 48 h after permanent catheter removal. The rate of urinary retention after anterior compartment repair by mesh anchored to the SSL from an anterior approach (SSLS group) was compared to that following transobturator mesh repair often combined with SSL fixation from the posterior approach (TOT group). RESULTS: Of the 94 patients considered for statistical analysis, 62 were from the SLSS group and 32 from the TOT group. The groups were comparable in age (mean 65.5 vs 66.3), body mass index (24.8 vs 25.9), and parity (2.4 vs 2.9). Patients from the SSLS group had higher rates of prior vaginal reconstructive (27 vs 19 %) and anti-incontinence surgery (26 vs 19 %). Postoperative urinary retention was statistically significantly more frequent in the SSLS group compared to the TOT group [(17 (27 %) vs 2 (6.25 %), odds ratio 5.7, 95 % confidence interval 1.2-26.3, p = 0.027]. Hospital discharge with self-catheterization was statistically insignificantly more frequent in the SSLS group [8 % (5) vs 3 % (1)]. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive dissection needed for SSL suspension from an anterior approach may lead to more frequent postoperative voiding difficulties. This phenomenon could be explained by more considerable injury to pelvic splanchnic nerves during the dissection. A large prospective study is needed for validation of our results.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 May;192(5):1537-43 PubMed
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jul;187(1):49-52 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):501-6 PubMed
Neurourol Urodyn. 2012 Jan;31(1):126-31 PubMed
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jun;184(7):1496-501; discussion 1501-3 PubMed
Surg Endosc. 2012 Jul;26(7):2029-45 PubMed
J Am Coll Surg. 1995 Apr;180(4):444-8 PubMed
BJOG. 2002 Apr;109(4):395-401 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Sep;120(3):581-6 PubMed
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Apr 1;119(2):144-55 PubMed
J Soc Gynecol Investig. 2002 Jan-Feb;9(1):47-56 PubMed
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jun;186(6):1160-6 PubMed
World J Urol. 2012 Aug;30(4):471-7 PubMed
Surg Endosc. 2004 Jul;18(7):1109-12 PubMed
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008 Mar-Apr;15(2):235-40 PubMed
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Jun;186(6):1292-5; discussion 1295-8 PubMed
Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28(3):225-8 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Jan;23(1):85-91 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Apr;95(4):612-5 PubMed
Gynakol Rundsch. 1979;19(1 Suppl):73-5 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Jun;23(6):723-8 PubMed
Surg Radiol Anat. 2007 Feb;29(1):55-66 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Mar;21(3):293-8 PubMed
Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Aug;98(2):199-204 PubMed
J Urol. 2009 Feb;181(2):679-84 PubMed
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Nov;22(11):1445-57 PubMed
J Urol. 2003 Feb;169(2):547-54 PubMed