首页> 外文期刊>International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction >Perioperative experience of pelvic organ prolapse repair with the Prolift? and Elevate? vaginal mesh procedures
【24h】

Perioperative experience of pelvic organ prolapse repair with the Prolift? and Elevate? vaginal mesh procedures

机译:用Prolift修复盆腔器官脱垂的围手术期经验?和提升?阴道网手术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Introduction and hypothesis: We compared the operative and immediate postoperative experience of the trocar-based Prolift? and non-trocar-based Elevate? techniques used to repair vaginal prolapse. Methods: A retrospective review of Prolift and Elevate repairs was performed. Baseline characteristics and operative and postoperative variables evaluated included compartment(s) repaired, adjacent organ injury, operative time (OT), change in hemoglobin (??H), pain score, narcotic use, length of stay (LOS), and short-term complications. Categorical variables were assessed as counts and percent frequency. Data were compared using chi-squared analysis and paired t test. Results: Prolift (n = 143) and Elevate (n = 77) patients were similar in age (p = 0.19). Concurrent hysterectomy was done in 22 (15.4 %) and 24 (31.2 %), respectively, and concurrent midurethral sling placed in 100 (70 %) and 50 (65 %), respectively. LOS (median, 25th,75th) after anterior/apical compartment repairs was shorter with Elevate, whether with (1.0; 1.0,1.5 vs. 2.0 days;1.0, 2.0; p = 0.003) or without (2.0; 1.0, 2.0 vs. 2.0 days; 2.0, 3.0; p = 0.024) hysterectomy, but no differences in OT, ??H, pain score, or narcotic use occurred. Posterior compartment mean pain scores were lower with Prolift (3.6 ?? 2.2 vs. 1.7 ?? 1.5, p = 0.035), and three-compartment-repair pain scores were lower with Elevate (0.6 ?? 1.3 vs 2.5 ?? 1.9; p = 0.013). Three bladder injuries occurred with Prolift but none with Elevate. Conclusions: Operative and postoperative experiences were similar between groups; however, Elevate anterior/apical repairs had shorter LOS, which might reflect more aggressive discharge planning. There were no bowel or major vascular injuries, and the Prolift trocar bladder injuries did not alter the surgical procedure. ? 2012 The International Urogynecological Association.
机译:引言和假设:我们比较了基于套管针的Prolift?的手术和即时术后经验。和非基于套管针的Elevate?修复阴道脱垂的技术。方法:对Prolift和Elevate修复进行回顾性审查。评估的基线特征以及手术和术后变量包括修复的隔室,邻近器官损伤,手术时间(OT),血红蛋白变化(ΔH),疼痛评分,麻醉剂使用,住院时间(LOS)和短期-足月并发症。分类变量被评估为计数和频率百分比。使用卡方分析和配对t检验比较数据。结果:Prolift(n = 143)和Elevate(n = 77)患者的年龄相似(p = 0.19)。并发子宫切除术分别进行了22例(15.4%)和24例(31.2%),并发的中段尿道吊带分别在100例(70%)和50例(65%)中进行。无论是否(1.0; 1.0,1.5 vs. 2.0天; 1.0,2.0; p = 0.003)或不使用(2.0; 1.0,2.0 vs.1.0),前/顶房室修复后的LOS(中值,第25,75)均较短。 2.0天; 2.0、3.0; p = 0.024)子宫切除术,但OT,ΔH,疼痛评分或麻醉剂使用没有差异。 Prolift手术后室平均疼痛评分较低(3.6≤2.2 vs. 1.7≤1.5,p = 0.035),三室修复疼痛评分较低(Elevate)(0.6≤1.3 vs 2.5≤1.9; p = 0.013)。 Prolift发生了3例膀胱损伤,而Elevate没有发生。结论:两组间的手术和术后经验相似。但是,前路/根尖修复术的LOS较短,这可能反映了更积极的出院计划。没有肠或主要血管损伤,并且Prolift套管针膀胱损伤未改变手术程序。 ? 2012年国际妇科医师协会。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号