Rusavy Zdenek, Najib Bernard, Abdelkhalek Yara, Grinstein Ehud, Gluck Ohad, Deval Bruno
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, Pilsen, Czech Republic; Department of Functional Pelvic Surgery & Oncology, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Ramsay, Générale de Santé, Paris, France.
Department of Functional Pelvic Surgery & Oncology, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Ramsay, Générale de Santé, Paris, France.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022 May;272:188-192. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.03.037. Epub 2022 Mar 26.
No recommendation regarding the number of meshes to be implanted in laparoscopic genital prolapse surgery exists. Is it necessary to implant a mesh into a compartment that is not affected to prevent its prolapse in the follow-up? Our objective was to compare the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy according to compartments where mesh was implanted.
This is a retrospective cohort study of 328 patients after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy at our centre in 7/2005 - 3/2021. 294 patients with perioperative data and POP-Q and/or prolapse symptoms in mean follow-up of 42.8 months was available for the outcome analysis. Surgical failure was defined as prolapse beyond hymen, subjective recurrence or retreatment. The women were divided into four groups depending on compartments, where the mesh was implanted. Group A - anterior, group P - posterior, Group AP - compound of patients with anterior or posterior single arm mesh placement and (B), with anterior and posterior arm placement. Groups AP and B were compared for feasibility of single compartment mesh implantation. Comparison of groups A and P allowed assessment of non-inferiority of single anterior vs. posterior compartment placement. The data were compared using Wilcoxon Two Sample test, Chi-square test or Fisheŕs Exact test, p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
A single compartment mesh implantation was associated with shorter operating time and hospital stay and comparable incidence of complications. A statistically significant difference in all POP-Q points in favour of group B was observed, however, with comparable rate of prolapse beyond hymen(6.3%AP vs. 7.8%B). Similar frequency of surgical failure (17.5%AP vs. 13.8%B) and incidence of de novo pelvic floor disorders or pain was observed. Comparison of groups A and P showed higher suspension of point C in group P(-2.6 vs. -4.0, p < 0.05) with no difference in points Ba, Bp, surgical failure rate and de novo pelvic floor disorders.
Implantation of a single sheet of mesh was not associated with inferior outcome to implantation of mesh to both compartments. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with a single mesh arm placed into the affected compartment along with apical suspension does not induce a de novo prolapse in unoperated compartment.
对于腹腔镜生殖器脱垂手术中植入网片的数量尚无推荐意见。是否有必要在未受影响的腔隙中植入网片以防止其在随访中发生脱垂?我们的目的是比较根据网片植入腔隙的不同,腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术的长期疗效。
这是一项对2005年7月至2021年3月在我们中心接受腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术的328例患者的回顾性队列研究。294例患者有围手术期数据以及在平均42.8个月的随访中有盆腔器官脱垂定量分期系统(POP-Q)和/或脱垂症状,可用于结果分析。手术失败定义为脱垂超过处女膜、主观复发或再次治疗。根据网片植入的腔隙将女性分为四组。A组——前路,P组——后路,AP组——前路或后路单臂网片放置患者的组合,以及(B)组,前路和后路臂放置。比较AP组和B组单腔隙网片植入的可行性。比较A组和P组可评估单前路与单后路腔隙放置的非劣效性。使用Wilcoxon两样本检验、卡方检验或Fisher精确检验对数据进行比较,p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
单腔隙网片植入与手术时间缩短和住院时间缩短以及并发症发生率相当相关。观察到在所有POP-Q点上B组有统计学显著差异,然而,处女膜外脱垂率相当(AP组为6.3% vs. B组为7.8%)。观察到手术失败频率相似(AP组为17.5% vs. B组为13.8%)以及新发盆底疾病或疼痛的发生率相似。A组和P组的比较显示P组C点的悬吊更高(-2.6 vs. -4.0,p<0.05),在Ba、Bp点、手术失败率和新发盆底疾病方面无差异。
单张网片植入与在两个腔隙中植入网片的疗效不佳无关。将单臂网片与顶端悬吊一起放置到受影响腔隙的腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术不会在未手术的腔隙中引起新发脱垂。