Cargando…

A Comparison of Different Pelvic Reconstruction Surgeries Using Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients

This study was carried out in order to compare the effects in different surgeries using mesh in pelvic organ prolapse patients whose leading points were C. Thirty-nine patients were categorized into 3 groups: group A pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy; group B hysterectomy prior to pelvic recon...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bai, Sang Wook, Kim, Euy Hyuk, Shin, Jong Seung, Kim, Sei Kwang, Park, Ki Hyun, Lee, Dong Han
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15744813
http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2005.46.1.112
_version_ 1782177588637073408
author Bai, Sang Wook
Kim, Euy Hyuk
Shin, Jong Seung
Kim, Sei Kwang
Park, Ki Hyun
Lee, Dong Han
author_facet Bai, Sang Wook
Kim, Euy Hyuk
Shin, Jong Seung
Kim, Sei Kwang
Park, Ki Hyun
Lee, Dong Han
author_sort Bai, Sang Wook
collection PubMed
description This study was carried out in order to compare the effects in different surgeries using mesh in pelvic organ prolapse patients whose leading points were C. Thirty-nine patients were categorized into 3 groups: group A pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy; group B hysterectomy prior to pelvic reconstruction; and group C pelvic reconstruction with uterus preserved. At first visit, POP-Q stage was determined, and age, BMI, admission days, operation time, post-operative stage and complications were observed and results were analyzed and compared. All patients who were operated upon converted to stage one month following the operation, and no further change was observed except in one patient. Group admission days were not significantly different, but tended to be lower in group C. Group average operation times between 'group A and B' and 'group A and C' were statistically different. No significant difference was observed in post-operative complications between the groups, but 3 members of group A developed erosion, whereas no erosion occurred in groups B and C. Pelvic reconstruction using mesh is a highly efficient method of treating pelvic organ prolapse. Improvements in stage and post-operative complications were not significantly different in the groups. However, uteropexy showed a shorter operation time, fewer admission days, and less erosion due to mesh than conventional pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy.
format Text
id pubmed-2823036
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher Yonsei University College of Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28230362010-02-17 A Comparison of Different Pelvic Reconstruction Surgeries Using Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients Bai, Sang Wook Kim, Euy Hyuk Shin, Jong Seung Kim, Sei Kwang Park, Ki Hyun Lee, Dong Han Yonsei Med J Original Article This study was carried out in order to compare the effects in different surgeries using mesh in pelvic organ prolapse patients whose leading points were C. Thirty-nine patients were categorized into 3 groups: group A pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy; group B hysterectomy prior to pelvic reconstruction; and group C pelvic reconstruction with uterus preserved. At first visit, POP-Q stage was determined, and age, BMI, admission days, operation time, post-operative stage and complications were observed and results were analyzed and compared. All patients who were operated upon converted to stage one month following the operation, and no further change was observed except in one patient. Group admission days were not significantly different, but tended to be lower in group C. Group average operation times between 'group A and B' and 'group A and C' were statistically different. No significant difference was observed in post-operative complications between the groups, but 3 members of group A developed erosion, whereas no erosion occurred in groups B and C. Pelvic reconstruction using mesh is a highly efficient method of treating pelvic organ prolapse. Improvements in stage and post-operative complications were not significantly different in the groups. However, uteropexy showed a shorter operation time, fewer admission days, and less erosion due to mesh than conventional pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy. Yonsei University College of Medicine 2005-02-28 2005-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC2823036/ /pubmed/15744813 http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2005.46.1.112 Text en Copyright © 2005 The Yonsei University College of Medicine http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bai, Sang Wook
Kim, Euy Hyuk
Shin, Jong Seung
Kim, Sei Kwang
Park, Ki Hyun
Lee, Dong Han
A Comparison of Different Pelvic Reconstruction Surgeries Using Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients
title A Comparison of Different Pelvic Reconstruction Surgeries Using Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients
title_full A Comparison of Different Pelvic Reconstruction Surgeries Using Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients
title_fullStr A Comparison of Different Pelvic Reconstruction Surgeries Using Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Different Pelvic Reconstruction Surgeries Using Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients
title_short A Comparison of Different Pelvic Reconstruction Surgeries Using Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Patients
title_sort comparison of different pelvic reconstruction surgeries using mesh for pelvic organ prolapse patients
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2823036/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15744813
http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2005.46.1.112
work_keys_str_mv AT baisangwook acomparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT kimeuyhyuk acomparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT shinjongseung acomparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT kimseikwang acomparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT parkkihyun acomparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT leedonghan acomparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT baisangwook comparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT kimeuyhyuk comparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT shinjongseung comparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT kimseikwang comparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT parkkihyun comparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients
AT leedonghan comparisonofdifferentpelvicreconstructionsurgeriesusingmeshforpelvicorganprolapsepatients