Long-term outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy using xenograft compared with synthetic mesh

被引:28
作者
Altman, D
Anzen, B
Brismar, S
Lopez, A
Zetterström, J
机构
[1] Danderyd Hosp, Pelv Floor Ctr, Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Danderyd Hosp, Karolinska Inst, Div Obstet & Gynecol, Stockholm, Sweden
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.urology.2005.10.034
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. To assess the clinical outcome after abdominal sacrocolpopexy using a porcine dermal graft compared with a synthetic mesh. Methods. Patients with vaginal vault prolapse Stage II or worse (Baden-Walker staging), underwent sacrocolpopexy using a synthetic mesh (n = 25) or porcine collagen graft (n = 27). The subjective outcome was measured using validated questionnaires. Results. The mean clinical follow-up from surgery was 7.1 months for the xenograft compared with 7.4 months for the synthetic cohort. At clinical follow-up, vaginal vault prolapse Stage II was present in 8 (29%) of 27 patients in the xenograft cohort and 6 (24%) of 25 patients in the synthetic mesh cohort (no significant difference). The mean follow-up from surgery to survey was 2.5 years in the xenograft cohort and 4.3 years in the synthetic cohort. None of the patients in either cohort had undergone a secondary sacrocolpopexy. No significant differences were found between the cohorts regarding surgical morbidity other than more patients experiencing fever for I to 3 days in the xenograft cohort (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in lower urinary tract symptoms, anorectal symptoms, or quality-of-life variables between the two cohorts. Conclusions. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy using a porcine dermal graft was comparable to synthetic mesh in terms of subjective and anatomic outcomes at mid to long-term follow-up.
引用
收藏
页码:719 / 724
页数:6
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Functional and anatomic outcome after transvaginal rectocele repair using collagen mesh:: A prospective study -: The authors reply [J].
Altman, D ;
Zetterström, J ;
Lopez, A ;
Anzen, B ;
Falconer, C ;
Hjern, F ;
Mellgren, A .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2005, 48 (06) :1242-1242
[2]   Clinical and histological safety assessment of rectocele repair using collagen mesh [J].
Altman, D ;
Mellgren, A ;
Blomgren, B ;
López, A ;
Zetterström, J ;
Nordenstam, J ;
Falconer, C .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2004, 83 (10) :995-1000
[3]   Randomized trial of porcine dermal sling (Pelvicol™ implant) vs. Tension-free Vaginal Tape (TVT) in the Surgical treatment of stress incontinence:: a questionnaire-based study [J].
Arunkalaivanan, AS ;
Barrington, JW .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2003, 14 (01) :17-23
[4]  
Baden W F, 1972, Clin Obstet Gynecol, V15, P1048, DOI 10.1097/00003081-197212000-00020
[5]   Abdominal sacrocolpopexy and anatomy and function of the posterior compartment [J].
Baessler, K ;
Schuessler, B .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2001, 97 (05) :678-684
[6]   Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: A prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation [J].
Benson, JT ;
Lucente, V ;
McClellan, E .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1996, 175 (06) :1418-1421
[7]   The role of synthetic and biological prostheses in reconstructive pelvic floor surgery [J].
Birch, C ;
Fynes, MM .
CURRENT OPINION IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 14 (05) :527-535
[8]  
Brun J. L., 1992, Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering, V2, P203
[9]   The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction [J].
Bump, RC ;
Mattiasson, A ;
Bo, K ;
Brubaker, LP ;
DeLancey, JOL ;
Klarskov, P ;
Shull, BL ;
Smith, ARB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1996, 175 (01) :10-17
[10]  
Cervigni M, 2001, Curr Opin Urol, V11, P429, DOI 10.1097/00042307-200107000-00016