posterior repair
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

53
(FIVE YEARS 13)

H-INDEX

11
(FIVE YEARS 1)

Author(s):  
Päivi K. Karjalainen ◽  
Anna-Maija Tolppanen ◽  
Nina K. Mattsson ◽  
Olga A.E. Wihersaari ◽  
Jyrki T. Jalkanen ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis It is unclear how compartment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) impacts overactive bladder (OAB) symptom severity or improvement after POP surgery. We hypothesized that anterior and apical prolapse are more strongly associated with OAB symptoms than posterior compartment prolapse. Methods A total of 2933 POP surgeries from a prospective population-based cohort were divided into two groups: (1) anterior and/or apical compartment surgery (± posterior repair), N = 2091; (2) posterior repair only, N = 478. Urinary frequency and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) were evaluated using PFDI-20 (bothersome symptom: score 3–4) at baseline, 6, and 24 months. Association between degree of POP in specific compartments and symptoms at baseline was estimated with generalized linear models and between compartment of surgery and symptom improvement with generalized estimating equations. Results At least one bothersome symptom was reported by 40% at baseline, 14% at 6, and 19% at 24 months. At baseline, urinary frequency was associated with degree of anterior and apical and UUI with anterior compartment prolapse. Women undergoing surgery for anterior/apical compartment started with worse symptoms and experienced greater improvement than women undergoing posterior compartment surgery. Bothersome frequency resolved in 82% after anterior/apical and in 63% after posterior compartment surgery. Bothersome UUI resolved in 75% after anterior/apical and in 61% after posterior compartment surgery. After surgery, symptom severity was comparable between groups. Bothersome de novo symptoms occurred in 1–3%. Conclusions OAB symptoms are more strongly related to anterior and apical than to posterior compartment prolapse, but improvement is seen after surgery for any vaginal compartment.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Francesco Deltetto ◽  
Alessandro Favilli ◽  
Giovanni Buzzaccarini ◽  
Amerigo Vitagliano

Objective. The use of transvaginal mesh is controversial, and over time, multiple surgical methods for the treatment of posterior vaginal prolapse (PVP) have been proposed including different surgical approaches and techniques. To date, no clear conclusion has been reached about the use of mesh for reinforcing transvaginal posterior repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of a novel, ultralightweight mesh for the treatment of PVP. Methods. We performed a single-center, prospective observational study on consecutive patients referred for primary or recurrent, symptomatic stage II PVP (according to the international Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System) from April 2017 to September 2018. In all patients, transvaginal posterior repair was augmented with a single-incision, isoelastic polypropylene mesh. Data about the postoperative outcomes were collected until December 2019. Results. A total number of 15 patients were included. The median follow-up after surgery was 18 months ( IQR = 14 ). Surgery was completed in all cases without complications. Regarding the anatomical outcomes (as measured according to POP-q classification), a significant improvement was observed in terms of Bp, D, and C ( p < 0.05 ). The functional outcomes were significantly ameliorated after surgery, with a reduction of bulge symptom, stypsis, incomplete evacuation, and excessive staining ( p < 0.05 ). The quality of life was significantly improved in the majority of patients ( p < 0.05 ). Median patients’ satisfaction rate was 100% ( IQR = 22.5 % ). Neither early nor late postoperative complications occurred. Conclusions. Single-incision, ultralightweight polypropylene meshes were safe and highly effective in the treatment of PVP. As our study has some limitations, further large, controlled studies are needed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-233
Author(s):  
Olivia H. Chang ◽  
Emily R. W. Davidson ◽  
Tonya N. Thomas ◽  
Marie Fidela R. Paraiso ◽  
Cecile A. Ferrando

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 2109-2116
Author(s):  
Stavros Athanasiou ◽  
Dimitrios Zacharakis ◽  
Themos Grigoriadis ◽  
Theodoros Papalios ◽  
Eleni Pitsouni ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. 2075-2080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia H. Chang ◽  
Emily R. W. Davidson ◽  
Tonya N. Thomas ◽  
Marie Fidela R. Paraiso ◽  
Cecile A. Ferrando

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document