Cargando…
Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8896356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01535-w |
_version_ | 1784663144556134400 |
---|---|
author | Li, Junwei Sima, Yizhen Hu, Changdong Wang, Xiaojuan Lu, Zhiying Hua, Keqin Chen, Yisong |
author_facet | Li, Junwei Sima, Yizhen Hu, Changdong Wang, Xiaojuan Lu, Zhiying Hua, Keqin Chen, Yisong |
author_sort | Li, Junwei |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years. RESULTS: 89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 ± 7.46 vs 41.81 ± 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 ± 0.90 vs 3.74 ± 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 ± 0.75 vs 7.21 ± 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (− 6.83 ± 0.54 vs − 6.39 ± 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups. CONCLUSION: TS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse. Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered) |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8896356 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88963562022-03-14 Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study Li, Junwei Sima, Yizhen Hu, Changdong Wang, Xiaojuan Lu, Zhiying Hua, Keqin Chen, Yisong BMC Surg Research BACKGROUND: Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years. RESULTS: 89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 ± 7.46 vs 41.81 ± 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 ± 0.90 vs 3.74 ± 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 ± 0.75 vs 7.21 ± 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (− 6.83 ± 0.54 vs − 6.39 ± 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups. CONCLUSION: TS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse. Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered) BioMed Central 2022-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8896356/ /pubmed/35246079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01535-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Li, Junwei Sima, Yizhen Hu, Changdong Wang, Xiaojuan Lu, Zhiying Hua, Keqin Chen, Yisong Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study |
title | Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study |
title_full | Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study |
title_fullStr | Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study |
title_short | Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study |
title_sort | transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8896356/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35246079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01535-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lijunwei transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy AT simayizhen transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy AT huchangdong transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy AT wangxiaojuan transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy AT luzhiying transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy AT huakeqin transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy AT chenyisong transvaginalsingleportversusmultiportlaparoscopicsacrocolpopexyaretrospectivecohortstudy |