• 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

相似文献

1
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse repair: A retrospective cohort study.腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术与开放性腹部骶骨阴道固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 May 24;78:103852. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103852. eCollection 2022 Jun.
2
Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.腹腔镜与经腹骶骨阴道固定术比较:一项随机对照试验。
J Urol. 2016 Jul;196(1):159-65. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.089. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
3
Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse.机器人经腹腔镜单部位与机器人多部位经阴道骶骨阴道固定术治疗阴道顶端脱垂的比较。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;222(4):358.e1-358.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.09.048. Epub 2019 Oct 4.
4
Risk factors of lower urinary tract injury with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术致下尿路损伤的危险因素
AJOG Glob Rep. 2021 Nov 14;2(1):100035. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2021.100035. eCollection 2022 Feb.
5
A Comparison of Complications between Open Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for the Treatment of Vault Prolapse.开放腹式骶骨阴道固定术与腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术治疗阴道穹窿脱垂的并发症比较
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:528636. doi: 10.1155/2013/528636. Epub 2013 Sep 26.
6
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial.腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术与开腹骶骨阴道固定术治疗阴道穹窿脱垂的比较:一项随机对照试验
Int Urogynecol J. 2017 Oct;28(10):1469-1479. doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
7
Mesh-related complications of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术的网片相关并发症
Int Urogynecol J. 2019 Sep;30(9):1475-1481. doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03952-7. Epub 2019 Apr 30.
8
Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.腹腔镜骶骨子宫固定术与腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术加子宫切除术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的比较
Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Jan;27(1):93-101. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9. Epub 2015 Jul 16.
9
Perioperative complications and short-term outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, and laparoscopic pectopexy for apical prolapse.经腹式骶骨阴道固定术、腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术和腹腔镜阴道前壁固定术治疗阴道顶端脱垂的围手术期并发症和短期结局。
Int Braz J Urol. 2018 Sep-Oct;44(5):996-1004. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2017.0692.
10
Comparing the outcomes and effectiveness of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.比较机器人辅助骶骨阴道固定术和腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的疗效。
Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Feb;33(2):297-308. doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04741-x. Epub 2021 Mar 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Peri- and Postoperative Complications in Abdominal, Vaginal Extraperitoneal, and Vaginal Intraperitoneal Colpopexy.腹部、经阴道腹膜外及经阴道腹膜内阴道固定术的围手术期及术后并发症
Cureus. 2025 Mar 24;17(3):e81112. doi: 10.7759/cureus.81112. eCollection 2025 Mar.
2
A comparative study in learning curves of laparoscopic lateral suspension vs. laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: preliminary results.腹腔镜侧方悬吊术与腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术学习曲线的比较研究:初步结果
Front Surg. 2023 Dec 6;10:1274178. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1274178. eCollection 2023.
3
Study of Post-hysterectomy Vault Prolapse and Surgical Management.子宫切除术后阴道穹窿脱垂及手术治疗的研究
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2023 Oct;73(Suppl 1):124-129. doi: 10.1007/s13224-023-01757-9. Epub 2023 May 15.
4
Comparison of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with vaginal reconstructive procedures and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the surgical management of vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术与阴道重建手术及经腹骶骨阴道固定术治疗阴道穹窿脱垂的比较:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Sep 12;10:1269214. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1269214. eCollection 2023.

本文引用的文献

1
STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery.STROCSS 2021:加强外科学队列研究、横断面研究和病例对照研究报告规范。
Int J Surg. 2021 Dec;96:106165. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106165. Epub 2021 Nov 11.
2
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial.腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术与开腹骶骨阴道固定术治疗阴道穹窿脱垂的比较:一项随机对照试验
Int Urogynecol J. 2017 Oct;28(10):1469-1479. doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
3
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.
4
Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.腹腔镜与经腹骶骨阴道固定术比较:一项随机对照试验。
J Urol. 2016 Jul;196(1):159-65. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.089. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
5
Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.良性妇科疾病子宫切除术的手术入路
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;2015(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5.
6
Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.腹腔镜与开放式骶骨阴道固定术治疗阴道顶端脱垂:一项系统评价和荟萃分析
Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Jan;27(1):3-17. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2765-y. Epub 2015 Aug 7.
7
A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study.一项比较经腹与腹腔镜骶棘韧带固定术治疗子宫切除术后阴道穹窿脱垂的随机对照试验:LAS研究
Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Mar;24(3):377-84. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1885-x. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
8
Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: a meta-analysis.良性疾病行全腹子宫切除术与全腹腔镜子宫切除术的比较:一项荟萃分析。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 May;144(1):3-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.01.003. Epub 2009 Mar 25.
9
Cesarean section and risk of pelvic organ prolapse: a nested case-control study.剖宫产与盆腔器官脱垂风险:一项巢式病例对照研究。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Mar;200(3):243.e1-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.11.028.
10
Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.腹腔镜与经腹骶骨阴道固定术治疗阴道穹窿脱垂的比较。
J Endourol. 2007 Aug;21(8):926-30. doi: 10.1089/end.2006.0381.

腹腔镜骶骨阴道固定术与开放性腹部骶骨阴道固定术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的比较:一项回顾性队列研究。

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse repair: A retrospective cohort study.

作者信息

Cho Eun Hye, Shin Eun Seo, Kim Sung Yob

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju Self-Governing Province, South Korea.

出版信息

Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022 May 24;78:103852. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103852. eCollection 2022 Jun.

DOI:10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103852
PMID:35734693
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9207108/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a progressive herniation of the pelvic organs through the urogenital diaphragm and commonly leads to vaginal bulge. Sacrocolpopexy is a procedure that surgically corrects POP and can be performed as open abdominal surgery or laparoscopic surgery. This study was performed to compare the therapeutic efficacies of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy.

METHODS

The medical records of 105 patients who had undergone laparoscopic or open abdominal sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy at Jeju National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. We compared the basic characteristics and clinical outcomes of these two groups of patients.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed between the characteristics of the patients in the abdominal-approach group and the laparoscopic-approach group. The laparoscopic-approach group had a lower intraoperative estimated blood loss (177.8 vs. 89.3 mL, 0.001) and a shorter operative time (132.0 vs. 112.3 min, 0.001) than the abdominal-approach group. The complication rates of the two groups were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study favor the use of a laparoscopic approach for sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy. The less invasive method leads to less blood loss and a shorter operative time than an open approach, while maintaining a comparable rate of complications.

摘要

引言

盆腔器官脱垂(POP)是盆腔器官通过泌尿生殖膈的进行性疝出,通常导致阴道膨出。骶骨阴道固定术是一种通过手术矫正POP的方法,可作为开放性腹部手术或腹腔镜手术进行。本研究旨在比较腹腔镜和腹部骶骨阴道固定术联合子宫切除术的治疗效果。

方法

回顾性分析济州国立大学医院105例行腹腔镜或开放性腹部骶骨阴道固定术联合子宫切除术患者的病历。我们比较了这两组患者的基本特征和临床结局。

结果

腹部入路组和腹腔镜入路组患者的特征之间未观察到显著差异。腹腔镜入路组术中估计失血量低于腹部入路组(177.8 vs. 89.3 mL,P = 0.001),手术时间也更短(132.0 vs. 112.3分钟,P = 0.001)。两组的并发症发生率无显著差异。

结论

我们的研究结果支持在骶骨阴道固定术联合子宫切除术中使用腹腔镜入路。与开放手术相比,这种侵入性较小的方法导致失血量更少、手术时间更短,同时保持了相当的并发症发生率。