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

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11140%2F20%3A10410359" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11140/20:10410359 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/49777513:23640/20:43958779 RIV/00669806:_____/20:10410359

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Zok4swI4OL" target="_blank" >https://verso.is.cuni.cz/pub/verso.fpl?fname=obd_publikace_handle&handle=Zok4swI4OL</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.049" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.049</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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&apos;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 &gt;= -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 followup women were asked to complete a PFDI, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-1), had their POP-Qstaging 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 &lt;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 &lt;3 or &gt;= 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. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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&apos;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 &gt;= -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 followup women were asked to complete a PFDI, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-1), had their POP-Qstaging 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 &lt;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 &lt;3 or &gt;= 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. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30214 - Obstetrics and gynaecology

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/LO1503" target="_blank" >LO1503: BIOMEDIC</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)<br>I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

European Journal of Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology and Reproductive Biology

ISSN

0301-2115

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

244

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

January

Stát vydavatele periodika

IE - Irsko

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

60-65

Kód UT WoS článku

000508768900014

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85074938048