Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00669806%3A_____%2F24%3A10479878" target="_blank" >RIV/00669806:_____/24:10479878 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/00216208:11140/24:10479878

Výsledek na webu

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

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-024-05780-w" target="_blank" >10.1007/s00192-024-05780-w</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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 &lt;= -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 &lt;= 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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy

Popis výsledku anglicky

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 &lt;= -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 &lt;= 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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30214 - Obstetrics and gynaecology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

International Urogynecology Journal

ISSN

0937-3462

e-ISSN

1433-3023

Svazek periodika

35

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

6

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

1155-1162

Kód UT WoS článku

001215045900001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85191722167