التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Single-center study for robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacropexies: a one-fits-all strategy for pelvic organ prolapse? |
| المؤلفون: |
Mach, Pawel, Kaufold, Cara, Rusch, Peter, Kimmig, Rainer, Buderath, Paul |
| المصدر: |
Archives of Gynecology & Obstetrics; Dec2022, Vol. 306 Issue 6, p2009-2015, 7p |
| مستخلص: |
Purpose: Sarcopenia has been established as the "gold standard" for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Minimal invasive laparoscopy can help to reduce the risks of open access surgery. We compare the surgical results and outcomes of robotic-assisted sacropexies. Methods: In this monocentric retrospective study we enrolled 49 patients operated on symptomatic POP. Patients were divided into two groups according to the type of robotic-assisted sacropexy: patients with a history of hysterectomy received robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RSCP; n = 19), while patients with subtotal hysterectomy received robotic-assisted cervicosacropexy (RCSP; n = 30). Failure was defined as recurrence of the disease with a need for reoperation. Validated questionnaires (the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory—20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire—7 (PFIQ-7)), were used for evaluation of patients quality of life postoperatively. Results: The comparison between RCSP versus RSCP showed that the latter is related to slightly but not significantly increased recurrence rates and a higher impact of POP symptoms on quality of life in long-term follow-up (p = 0.04). Perioperative data showed similar complication rates in both RSP types but shorter postoperative time of bladder catheterization in the case of RCSP (p = 0.008). Conclusions: The monocentric long-term data confirm that RSP is a safe and effective method of surgical POP treatment, regardless of the site of the anatomical compartment. In comparison to RSCP, RCSP is associated with a lower impact of POP symptoms on patients' quality of life with a tendency to slightly lower rates of POP recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Archives of Gynecology & Obstetrics is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
