Suppr超能文献

腹骶阴道固定术后阴道网片侵蚀

Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy.

作者信息

Visco A G, Weidner A C, Barber M D, Myers E R, Cundiff G W, Bump R C, Addison W A

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

出版信息

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Feb;184(3):297-302. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.109654.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to compare the prevalence of vaginal mesh erosion between abdominal sacral colpopexy and various sacral colpoperineopexy procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

We undertook a retrospective analysis of all sacral colpopexies and colpoperineopexies performed between March 1, 1992, and February 28, 1999. The patients were divided into the following 4 groups: abdominal sacral colpopexy, abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy, and 2 combined vaginal and abdominal colpoperineopexy groups, one with vaginal suture passage and the other with vaginal mesh placement. Survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were developed to examine erosion rates and time to erosion between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 273 abdominal sacral vault suspensions were performed with the use of permanent synthetic mesh. There were 155 abdominal sacral colpopexies and 88 abdominal sacral colpoperineopexies. Among the 30 combined abdominal-vaginal procedures, 25 had sutures attached to the perineal body and brought into the abdominal field and 5 had mesh placed vaginally and brought into the abdominal field. Overall, mesh erosion was observed in 5.5% (15/273). The prevalence of mesh erosion was 3.2% (5/155) in the abdominal sacral colpopexy group and 4.5% (5/88) in the abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy group (P not significant). The rates of erosion when sutures or mesh was placed vaginally were 16% (4/25) and 40% (2/5), respectively, and were significantly increased in comparison with the rates for abdominal sacral colpopexy (hazard ratio, 5.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-18.0; P = .005; vs hazard ratio, 19.7; 95% confidence interval, 3.8-101.5; P < .001). These variables retained their significance after we controlled for other independent variables, including age, concomitant hysterectomy, concomitant posterior repair, and estrogen status. The median time to mesh erosion was 15.6 months for abdominal sacral colpopexy, 12.4 months for abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy, 9.0 months in the suture-only group (P < .005), and 4.1 months in the vaginal mesh group (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of mesh erosion is higher and the time to mesh erosion is shorter with combined vaginal-abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy with vaginal suture and vaginal mesh placement in comparison with abdominal sacral colpopexy.

摘要

目的

我们的目标是比较腹骶阴道固定术与各种骶会阴阴道固定术之间阴道网片侵蚀的发生率。

研究设计

我们对1992年3月1日至1999年2月28日期间进行的所有骶阴道固定术和会阴阴道固定术进行了回顾性分析。患者被分为以下4组:腹骶阴道固定术、腹骶会阴阴道固定术以及2个阴道和腹部联合会阴阴道固定术组,一组采用阴道缝线穿过,另一组采用阴道网片放置。采用生存分析和Cox比例风险模型来检查各组之间的侵蚀率和侵蚀时间。

结果

共使用永久性合成网片进行了273例腹骶穹窿悬吊术。其中有155例腹骶阴道固定术和88例腹骶会阴阴道固定术。在30例腹部 - 阴道联合手术中,25例将缝线附着于会阴体并引入腹部区域,5例在阴道放置网片并引入腹部区域。总体而言,观察到5.5%(15/273)的患者发生网片侵蚀。腹骶阴道固定术组中网片侵蚀的发生率为3.2%(5/155),腹骶会阴阴道固定术组为4.5%(5/88)(P无显著性差异)。当在阴道放置缝线或网片时,侵蚀率分别为16%(4/25)和40%(2/5),与腹骶阴道固定术的侵蚀率相比显著增加(风险比,5.4;95%置信区间,1.6 - 18.0;P = .005;与风险比,19.7;95%置信区间,3.8 - 101.5;P < .001)。在我们控制了其他独立变量,包括年龄、同期子宫切除术、同期后路修复和雌激素状态后,这些变量仍具有显著性。腹骶阴道固定术的网片侵蚀中位时间为15.6个月,腹骶会阴阴道固定术为12.4个月,仅缝线组为9.个月(P < .005),阴道网片组为4.1个月(P < .0001)。

结论

与腹骶阴道固定术相比,采用阴道缝线和阴道网片放置的腹骶联合会阴阴道固定术的网片侵蚀率更高且网片侵蚀时间更短。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验