Suppr超能文献

一项比较使用可吸收或永久性缝线固定阴道网片的骶骨阴道固定术后解剖学失败情况的试点研究。

A pilot study comparing anatomic failure after sacrocolpopexy with absorbable or permanent sutures for vaginal mesh attachment.

作者信息

Tan-Kim Jasmine, Menefee Shawn A, Lippmann Quinn, Lukacz Emily S, Luber Karl M, Nager Charles W

机构信息

Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeon at the Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center in CA.

Division Chief in Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery at the Kaiser Permanente San Diego Medical Center in CA.

出版信息

Perm J. 2014 Fall;18(4):40-4. doi: 10.7812/TPP/14-022.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To describe anatomic failure rates for sacrocolpopexy in groups receiving either delayed absorbable or permanent monofilament suture for mesh attachment to the vagina.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 193 women who underwent sacrocolpopexy with 2 different types of sutures attaching polypropylene mesh to the vagina: delayed absorbable sutures (median follow-up, 43 weeks) and permanent sutures (median follow-up, 106 weeks). Vaginal apical failure was defined as Point C greater than or equal to half of the total vaginal length. Anterior-posterior compartmental failures were defined as Point Ba and/or Point Bp more than 0 cm. Fisher exact and χ2 tests were used to compare failure rates. There were no documented suture erosions in the delayed absorbable monofilament suture group during the review period. Two patients in the permanent suture group were found to have permanent suture in the bladder more than 30 weeks after the index procedure.

RESULTS

Failure rates for the 45 subjects in the delayed absorbable group and 148 subjects in the permanent suture group were similar (4.4% vs 3.4%, p = 0.74) and not statistically different in any compartment: apical (0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.43), anterior (4.4% vs 2%, p = 0.38), or posterior (0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed absorbable monofilament suture appears to be a reasonable alternative to permanent suture for mesh attachment to the vagina during sacrocolpopexy. The use of delayed absorbable suture could potentially prevent complications of suture erosion into the bladder or vagina remote from the time of surgery.

摘要

目的

描述在接受延迟可吸收或永久性单丝缝线将网片固定于阴道的两组患者中,骶骨阴道固定术的解剖学失败率。

方法

我们回顾了193例行骶骨阴道固定术的女性患者的病历,这些患者使用两种不同类型的缝线将聚丙烯网片固定于阴道:延迟可吸收缝线(中位随访时间43周)和永久性缝线(中位随访时间106周)。阴道顶端失败定义为C点大于或等于阴道总长度的一半。前后盆腔失败定义为Ba点和/或Bp点大于0 cm。采用Fisher精确检验和χ2检验比较失败率。在回顾期内,延迟可吸收单丝缝线组未记录到缝线侵蚀。永久性缝线组有2例患者在初次手术后30周以上膀胱内发现永久性缝线。

结果

延迟可吸收组45例患者和永久性缝线组148例患者的失败率相似(4.4%对3.4%,p = 0.74),在任何盆腔区域均无统计学差异:顶端(0%对1.4%,p = 0.43)、前部(4.4%对2%,p = 0.38)或后部(0%对1.4%,p = 0.43)。

结论

在骶骨阴道固定术中,延迟可吸收单丝缝线似乎是将网片固定于阴道的永久性缝线的合理替代方案。使用延迟可吸收缝线可能会预防手术后期缝线侵蚀膀胱或阴道的并发症。

相似文献

3
Anchor vs suture for the attachment of vaginal mesh in a robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: a randomized clinical trial.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;223(2):258.e1-258.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.018. Epub 2020 May 13.
4
A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
Int Urogynecol J. 2015 May;26(5):649-56. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2566-8. Epub 2014 Nov 25.
5
6
At the Scrub Sink: Permanent Versus Absorbable Sutures for Sacrocolpopexy Vaginal Mesh Fixation.
Urogynecology (Phila). 2024 Sep 1;30(9):733-735. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001569. Epub 2024 Aug 10.
7
Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture in Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Feb 1;141(2):268-283. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005032. Epub 2023 Jan 4.
8
Anatomical Outcomes Based on Suturing Technique During Vaginal Mesh Attachment in Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019 Mar/Apr;25(2):105-108. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000654.
9
Outcomes of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy Using Only Absorbable Suture for Mesh Fixation.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017 Jan/Feb;23(1):13-16. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000326.
10
Mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Dec;92(6):999-1004. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00330-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Practice of laparoscopic prolapse surgery in Europe - ESGE Survey.
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2023 Sep;15(3):269-276. doi: 10.52054/FVVO.15.3.087.
2
Absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for vaginal mesh attachment during sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.
Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Feb;33(2):411-419. doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04853-4. Epub 2021 Jun 8.
3
Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with autologous fascia lata: technique and initial outcomes.
Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Nov;30(11):1965-1971. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03884-2. Epub 2019 Feb 1.
4
Robotic Sacrocolpopexy-Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse?
Curr Urol Rep. 2017 Sep;18(9):66. doi: 10.1007/s11934-017-0715-6.
5
Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy: How to Avoid Short- and Long-Term Complications.
Curr Urol Rep. 2016 Nov;17(11):81. doi: 10.1007/s11934-016-0638-7.
6
A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
Int Urogynecol J. 2015 May;26(5):649-56. doi: 10.1007/s00192-014-2566-8. Epub 2014 Nov 25.

本文引用的文献

1
Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.
JAMA. 2013 May 15;309(19):2016-24. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919.
2
Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;17(1):44-9. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181fa44cf.
3
Effect of suture selection on the rate of suture or mesh erosion and surgery failure in abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010 Jul;16(4):229-33. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181d683a3.
4
Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;204(4):360.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016.
5
Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.
Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Feb;22(2):205-12. doi: 10.1007/s00192-010-1265-3. Epub 2010 Sep 15.
6
Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery.
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Summer;2(3):146-58.
7
Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;114(3):600-609. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae.
8
Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review.
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):367-73. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195888d.
9
Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Dec;199(6):688.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.07.029. Epub 2008 Oct 31.

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