Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger Groups

Introduction: Vaginal vault prolapsus is a challenging problem for the patients and physicians. There may be differences between young and elderly patients in terms of efficiency and safety of surgical procedures. Aim: The aim of our study was to compare the efficiency of the Posterior Intravag...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tolgay Tuyan Ilhan, AkIn Sivaslioglu, Türkan Ilhan, Mustafa Gazi Uçar, Ismail Dolen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited 2016-07-01
Series:Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/8104/18360_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf
_version_ 1818519555202351104
author Tolgay Tuyan Ilhan
AkIn Sivaslioglu
Türkan Ilhan
Mustafa Gazi Uçar
Ismail Dolen
author_facet Tolgay Tuyan Ilhan
AkIn Sivaslioglu
Türkan Ilhan
Mustafa Gazi Uçar
Ismail Dolen
author_sort Tolgay Tuyan Ilhan
collection DOAJ
description Introduction: Vaginal vault prolapsus is a challenging problem for the patients and physicians. There may be differences between young and elderly patients in terms of efficiency and safety of surgical procedures. Aim: The aim of our study was to compare the efficiency of the Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) procedure in older versus younger patient groups. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients who underwent the PIVS procedure were chosen. Twenty of these patients were younger than 60 years of age (Group I) while the other 20 patients were 60 years of age or older (Group II). Preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapsed Quantification (POP-Q) reference points were compared with postoperative data at the first year following surgery. Student’s t-test was used to analyse continuous variables and the χ2 test was used to analyse categorical data. The Mann–Whitney test was used for data that were not normally distributed. Results: Anatomical cure rates were 90 percent in both groups (p=1.00). There were significantly greater improvements in POP-Q points in group I than group II. Conclusion: It could be concluded that PIVS as minimally invasive procedure for vaginal vault prolapsed and is effective in all age groups.
first_indexed 2024-12-11T01:25:46Z
format Article
id doaj.art-c034530d96204ebe86e2d99e22ed3707
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2249-782X
0973-709X
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-11T01:25:46Z
publishDate 2016-07-01
publisher JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
record_format Article
series Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
spelling doaj.art-c034530d96204ebe86e2d99e22ed37072022-12-22T01:25:31ZengJCDR Research and Publications Private LimitedJournal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research2249-782X0973-709X2016-07-01107QC05QC0710.7860/JCDR/2016/18360.8104Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger GroupsTolgay Tuyan Ilhan0AkIn Sivaslioglu1Türkan Ilhan2Mustafa Gazi Uçar3Ismail Dolen 4Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.Associate Professor, Katip Celebi University, Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics, Izmir, Turkey.Assistant Professor, Beyhekim State Hospital, Konya,Turkey.Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.Associate Professor, Etlik Zubeyde Hanım Women’s and Maternity Research and Training Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.Introduction: Vaginal vault prolapsus is a challenging problem for the patients and physicians. There may be differences between young and elderly patients in terms of efficiency and safety of surgical procedures. Aim: The aim of our study was to compare the efficiency of the Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) procedure in older versus younger patient groups. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients who underwent the PIVS procedure were chosen. Twenty of these patients were younger than 60 years of age (Group I) while the other 20 patients were 60 years of age or older (Group II). Preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapsed Quantification (POP-Q) reference points were compared with postoperative data at the first year following surgery. Student’s t-test was used to analyse continuous variables and the χ2 test was used to analyse categorical data. The Mann–Whitney test was used for data that were not normally distributed. Results: Anatomical cure rates were 90 percent in both groups (p=1.00). There were significantly greater improvements in POP-Q points in group I than group II. Conclusion: It could be concluded that PIVS as minimally invasive procedure for vaginal vault prolapsed and is effective in all age groups.https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/8104/18360_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdfpelvic organ prolapsusrisk factor for recurrence prolapsusvaginal vault prolapsus
spellingShingle Tolgay Tuyan Ilhan
AkIn Sivaslioglu
Türkan Ilhan
Mustafa Gazi Uçar
Ismail Dolen
Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger Groups
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
pelvic organ prolapsus
risk factor for recurrence prolapsus
vaginal vault prolapsus
title Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger Groups
title_full Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger Groups
title_fullStr Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger Groups
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger Groups
title_short Comparison of the Efficiency of Posterior Intravaginal Sling (PIVS) Procedure in Older and Younger Groups
title_sort comparison of the efficiency of posterior intravaginal sling pivs procedure in older and younger groups
topic pelvic organ prolapsus
risk factor for recurrence prolapsus
vaginal vault prolapsus
url https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/8104/18360_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(ROAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT tolgaytuyanilhan comparisonoftheefficiencyofposteriorintravaginalslingpivsprocedureinolderandyoungergroups
AT akinsivaslioglu comparisonoftheefficiencyofposteriorintravaginalslingpivsprocedureinolderandyoungergroups
AT turkanilhan comparisonoftheefficiencyofposteriorintravaginalslingpivsprocedureinolderandyoungergroups
AT mustafagaziucar comparisonoftheefficiencyofposteriorintravaginalslingpivsprocedureinolderandyoungergroups
AT ismaildolen comparisonoftheefficiencyofposteriorintravaginalslingpivsprocedureinolderandyoungergroups