Surgical Outcomes of a Combined Surgical Approach for Apical Prolapse Repair
Abstract Introduction We aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and surgical outcomes of combined laparoscopic/vaginal prolapse repair by two surgeons. Material and Methods A retrospective chart review of all patients (n =135) who underwent apical prolapse repair from February 2009 to December 2...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Federação Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
2016-08-01
|
| Series: | Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbgo/v38n8/0100-7203-rbgo-38-08-00405.pdf |
| _version_ | 1798016289196736512 |
|---|---|
| author | Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito Sarah Lauren Cohen Olga Tusheva Neeraj Kohli Abraham Morse Emily Rose Goggins Jon Ivar Einarsson |
| author_facet | Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito Sarah Lauren Cohen Olga Tusheva Neeraj Kohli Abraham Morse Emily Rose Goggins Jon Ivar Einarsson |
| author_sort | Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Introduction We aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and surgical outcomes of combined laparoscopic/vaginal prolapse repair by two surgeons. Material and Methods A retrospective chart review of all patients (n =135) who underwent apical prolapse repair from February 2009 to December 2012 performed in a collaborative manner by a Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgeon and a Urogynecologist. Demographic data (age, body mass index [BMI], race, gravidity, parity) and surgical information (estimated blood loss, operative time, intraoperative complications, readmission and reoperation rates, presence of postoperative infection) were collected. Results The majority of patients were postmenopausal (58.91%), multiparous (mean parity =2.49) and overweight (mean BMI =27.71). Nearly 20% had previous prolapse surgery. The most common surgical procedure was laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) with sacrocervicopexy (59.26%), and the most common vaginal repair was of the posterior compartment (78.68%). The median operative time was 149 minutes (82-302), and the estimated blood loss was 100 mL (10-530). Five intraoperative complications, five readmissions and four reoperations were noted. Performance of a concomitant hysterectomy did not affect surgical or anatomical outcomes. Conclusion Combination laparoscopic/vaginal prolapse repair by two separate surgeons seems to be an efficient option for operative management. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T15:48:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-db0316af952846d7b16399e81b7caac4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0100-7203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T15:48:35Z |
| publishDate | 2016-08-01 |
| publisher | Federação Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia |
| spelling | doaj.art-db0316af952846d7b16399e81b7caac42022-12-22T04:15:28ZengFederação Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e ObstetríciaRevista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia0100-72032016-08-0138840541110.1055/s-0036-1586747Surgical Outcomes of a Combined Surgical Approach for Apical Prolapse RepairLuiz Gustavo Oliveira BritoSarah Lauren CohenOlga TushevaNeeraj KohliAbraham MorseEmily Rose GogginsJon Ivar EinarssonAbstract Introduction We aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and surgical outcomes of combined laparoscopic/vaginal prolapse repair by two surgeons. Material and Methods A retrospective chart review of all patients (n =135) who underwent apical prolapse repair from February 2009 to December 2012 performed in a collaborative manner by a Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgeon and a Urogynecologist. Demographic data (age, body mass index [BMI], race, gravidity, parity) and surgical information (estimated blood loss, operative time, intraoperative complications, readmission and reoperation rates, presence of postoperative infection) were collected. Results The majority of patients were postmenopausal (58.91%), multiparous (mean parity =2.49) and overweight (mean BMI =27.71). Nearly 20% had previous prolapse surgery. The most common surgical procedure was laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) with sacrocervicopexy (59.26%), and the most common vaginal repair was of the posterior compartment (78.68%). The median operative time was 149 minutes (82-302), and the estimated blood loss was 100 mL (10-530). Five intraoperative complications, five readmissions and four reoperations were noted. Performance of a concomitant hysterectomy did not affect surgical or anatomical outcomes. Conclusion Combination laparoscopic/vaginal prolapse repair by two separate surgeons seems to be an efficient option for operative management.http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbgo/v38n8/0100-7203-rbgo-38-08-00405.pdfsacrocolpopexyoperative timecombined surgeryapical prolapse |
| spellingShingle | Luiz Gustavo Oliveira Brito Sarah Lauren Cohen Olga Tusheva Neeraj Kohli Abraham Morse Emily Rose Goggins Jon Ivar Einarsson Surgical Outcomes of a Combined Surgical Approach for Apical Prolapse Repair Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia sacrocolpopexy operative time combined surgery apical prolapse |
| title | Surgical Outcomes of a Combined Surgical Approach for Apical Prolapse Repair |
| title_full | Surgical Outcomes of a Combined Surgical Approach for Apical Prolapse Repair |
| title_fullStr | Surgical Outcomes of a Combined Surgical Approach for Apical Prolapse Repair |
| title_full_unstemmed | Surgical Outcomes of a Combined Surgical Approach for Apical Prolapse Repair |
| title_short | Surgical Outcomes of a Combined Surgical Approach for Apical Prolapse Repair |
| title_sort | surgical outcomes of a combined surgical approach for apical prolapse repair |
| topic | sacrocolpopexy operative time combined surgery apical prolapse |
| url | http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbgo/v38n8/0100-7203-rbgo-38-08-00405.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT luizgustavooliveirabrito surgicaloutcomesofacombinedsurgicalapproachforapicalprolapserepair AT sarahlaurencohen surgicaloutcomesofacombinedsurgicalapproachforapicalprolapserepair AT olgatusheva surgicaloutcomesofacombinedsurgicalapproachforapicalprolapserepair AT neerajkohli surgicaloutcomesofacombinedsurgicalapproachforapicalprolapserepair AT abrahammorse surgicaloutcomesofacombinedsurgicalapproachforapicalprolapserepair AT emilyrosegoggins surgicaloutcomesofacombinedsurgicalapproachforapicalprolapserepair AT jonivareinarsson surgicaloutcomesofacombinedsurgicalapproachforapicalprolapserepair |