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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |