• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

腹部及微创骶骨阴道固定术的疗效:一项回顾性队列研究。

Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study.

作者信息

Nosti Patrick A, Umoh Andy Uduak, Kane Sarah, White Dena E, Harvie Heidi S, Lowenstein Lior, Gutman Robert E

机构信息

From the *FPMRS Division, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; †FPMRS Division, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; ‡Division of Urogynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Case Western Reserve University, MetroHealth Medical Center; §FPMRS Division, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; and ∥FPMRS Division, Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.

出版信息

Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1):33-7. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036.

DOI:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036
PMID:24368486
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare perioperative and postoperative surgical outcomes between and among open and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexies (MISCs).

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study comparing abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) and MISC from January 1999 to December 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 1124 subjects underwent sacrocolpopexy, with 589 ASCs and 535 MISCs. Within the MISC group, 273 were laparoscopic (LSC) and 262 were robotic (RSC). Abdominal sacrocolpopexy was associated with greater overall complication rate compared with MISC (20.0% vs 12.7%; P = 0.001). After controlling for difference in length of follow-up, there was no significant difference in the rate of anatomical failure between the ASC and MISC groups. The MISC group had shorter hospitalization, less blood loss, but longer operative times compared with the ASC group. When comparing LSC to RSC, there was no difference in anatomic failures (7.7% vs 6.9%; P = 0.74). However, LSC was associated with more complications compared with RSC (18% vs 7%; P < 0.02). In addition, LSC had higher blood loss, less operative time, and shorter hospital stay compared with RSC.

CONCLUSION

Although anatomic results are similar, ASC is associated with a higher rate of complications compared with MISC.

摘要

目的

比较开放性和微创性骶骨阴道固定术(MISC)围手术期及术后的手术结果。

方法

我们进行了一项多中心回顾性队列研究,比较1999年1月至2010年12月期间的腹式骶骨阴道固定术(ASC)和MISC。

结果

共有1124名受试者接受了骶骨阴道固定术,其中589例为ASC,535例为MISC。在MISC组中,273例为腹腔镜手术(LSC),262例为机器人手术(RSC)。与MISC相比,腹式骶骨阴道固定术的总体并发症发生率更高(20.0%对12.7%;P = 0.001)。在控制随访时间差异后,ASC组和MISC组之间的解剖学失败率无显著差异。与ASC组相比,MISC组住院时间更短,失血量更少,但手术时间更长。当比较LSC和RSC时,解剖学失败率无差异(7.7%对6.9%;P = 0.74)。然而,与RSC相比,LSC的并发症更多(18%对7%;P < 0.02)。此外,与RSC相比,LSC失血量更多,手术时间更短,住院时间更短。

结论

虽然解剖学结果相似,但与MISC相比,ASC的并发症发生率更高。

相似文献

1
Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study.腹部及微创骶骨阴道固定术的疗效:一项回顾性队列研究。
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1):33-7. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036.
2
Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy.微创经腹阴道骶骨固定术后的围手术期不良事件。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Nov;211(5):547.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.07.054. Epub 2014 Aug 1.
3
Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.机器人辅助和经腹骶骨阴道固定术后 1 年的症状和解剖学结果。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 May;206(5):435.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.035. Epub 2012 Feb 1.
4
A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.腹腔镜和机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的现状综述。
Eur Urol. 2014 Jun;65(6):1128-37. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.064. Epub 2014 Jan 8.
5
A comparison of 30-day surgical outcomes for minimally invasive and open sacrocolpopexy.微创与开放骶骨阴道固定术30天手术结局的比较。
Neurourol Urodyn. 2015 Feb;34(2):151-5. doi: 10.1002/nau.22522. Epub 2013 Nov 22.
6
Minimally invasive apical sacropexy: a retrospective review of laparoscopic and robotic operating room experiences.微创顶端骶骨固定术:腹腔镜和机器人手术室经验的回顾性分析
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012 Mar-Apr;18(2):122-6. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824a3995.
7
Robotic sacrocolpopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse: a review of midterm surgical and quality of life outcomes.机器人骶骨阴道固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂:中期手术及生活质量结局综述
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1):38-43. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000047.
8
Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy.新手术的实施:腹腔镜与机器人骶骨阴道固定术。
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013 Jun;287(6):1181-6. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2691-x. Epub 2012 Dec 30.
9
Pelvic floor function before and after robotic sacrocolpopexy: one-year outcomes.机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术前后的盆底功能:一年的结果。
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 May-Jun;18(3):322-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2011.01.008. Epub 2011 Apr 1.
10
Abdominal Versus Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.经腹与腹腔镜骶棘韧带固定术:一项系统评价与Meta分析
Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016 Aug;71(7):435-42. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000335.

引用本文的文献

1
The Safety of Robot-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的安全性:系统评价与荟萃分析
Int Urogynecol J. 2025 Jul;36(7):1355-1372. doi: 10.1007/s00192-025-06158-2. Epub 2025 Jun 12.
2
[Robot-assisted minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review].[机器人辅助微创骶骨阴道固定术:全面综述]
Urologie. 2025 May 7. doi: 10.1007/s00120-025-02585-7.
3
Comparison of sexual function between laparoscopic lateral suspension and laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy with the use of the PISQ-IR questionnaire.
使用PISQ-IR问卷比较腹腔镜侧方悬吊术与腹腔镜骶骨宫颈固定术之间的性功能。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Dec 6;11:1456073. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1456073. eCollection 2024.
4
Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Robotic-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse-A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis.腹腔镜与机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的疗效——一项全面的回顾性分析
Int Urogynecol J. 2024 Nov;35(11):2203-2210. doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05942-w. Epub 2024 Oct 21.
5
Surgical Treatment of Enlarged Cervical Leiomyoma with Concomitant Uterine Prolapse: A Case Report.合并子宫脱垂的宫颈巨大平滑肌瘤的手术治疗:一例报告
J Clin Med. 2024 Jul 19;13(14):4210. doi: 10.3390/jcm13144210.
6
A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Dubuisson Laparoscopic Lateral Suspension with Laparoscopic Sacropexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Short-Term Results.一项比较杜布瓦松腹腔镜侧方悬吊术与腹腔镜骶骨固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的随机临床试验:短期结果
J Clin Med. 2024 Feb 27;13(5):1348. doi: 10.3390/jcm13051348.
7
Global research hotspots and trends on robotic surgery in obstetrics and gynecology: a bibliometric analysis based on VOSviewer.妇产科机器人手术的全球研究热点与趋势:基于VOSviewer的文献计量分析
Front Surg. 2024 Feb 9;11:1308489. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1308489. eCollection 2024.
8
Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: efficiency of robotic assistance compared to standard laparoscopy.经阴道机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术与标准腹腔镜手术的疗效比较。
J Robot Surg. 2024 Feb 10;18(1):72. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01799-1.
9
Robotic Sacrocolpopexy with Autologous Fascia Lata: A Case Series.自体阔筋膜机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术:病例系列
Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023 Feb 9;12(1):10-14. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_7_22. eCollection 2023 Jan-Mar.
10
A systematic review of the surgical management of apical pelvic organ prolapse.盆腔脏器顶端脱垂手术治疗的系统评价
Int Urogynecol J. 2023 Apr;34(4):825-841. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05408-x. Epub 2022 Dec 3.