Comparison of Laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse

被引:78
作者
Hsiao, Kenneth C.
Latchamsetty, Kalyan
Govier, Fred E.
Kozlowski, Paul
Kobashi, Kathleen C.
机构
[1] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Dept Urol, Indianapolis, IN 46204 USA
[2] Virginia Mason Med Ctr, Dept Urol, Renal Transplantat, Seattle, WA USA
关键词
D O I
10.1089/end.2006.0381
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
Background and Purpose: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy ( LSCP) offers a minimally invasive treatment for vaginal vault prolapse. We describe the surgical technique and offer insight into the learning curve. In addition, we performed a case series review comparing the laparoscopic procedure with its open surgical counterpart with respect to various demographic and perioperative parameters. Patients and Methods: The Institutional Review Board-approved continence database at our institution was queried to identify all patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy between August 1999 and October 2004. The LSCP was performed in 25 patients, and open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASCP) was performed in 22 patients. Data were analyzed using Student's t-test and the Fisher exact test. Results: No significant difference was observed in the demographic characteristics of the patients undergoing the two approaches. The mean estimated blood loss ( P = 0.0002) and mean length of hospitalization ( P < 0.0001) were significantly less for LSCP, whereas the operative time was significantly longer ( 219.9 minutes v 185.2 minutes; P = 0.045). The success rate for LSCP at 5.9 months was 100%; the ASCP success rate at 11.0 months was 95%. Conclusions: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy led to shorter hospitalization, better hemostasis, and less pain than the open procedure. Early follow-up suggests that LSCP is as effective as ASCP for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.
引用
收藏
页码:926 / 930
页数:5
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Laparoscopic promontory sacral colpopexy: Is the posterior, recto-vaginal, mesh mandatory? [J].
Antiphon, P ;
Elard, S ;
Benyoussef, A ;
Fofana, M ;
Yiou, R ;
Gettman, M ;
Hoznek, A ;
Vordos, D ;
Chopin, DK ;
Abbou, CC .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2004, 45 (05) :655-661
[2]  
BECK RP, 1991, OBSTET GYNECOL, V78, P1011
[3]   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
[4]   Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997 [J].
Boyles, SH ;
Weber, AM ;
Meyn, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (01) :108-115
[5]   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
[6]  
Claydon CS, 2004, J PELVIC MED SURG, V10, P173
[7]   High rate of vaginal extrusion of silicone-coated polyester sling [J].
Comiter, CV ;
Colegrove, PM .
UROLOGY, 2004, 63 (06) :1066-1070
[8]  
Cosson M, 2000, J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris), V29, P746
[9]   Robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of vaginal vault prolapse [J].
DiMarco, DS ;
Chow, GK ;
Gettman, MT ;
Elliott, DS .
UROLOGY, 2004, 63 (02) :373-376
[10]  
Flynn Brian J, 2002, Curr Opin Urol, V12, P353, DOI 10.1097/00042307-200207000-00015