Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMC Womens Health ; 19(1): 49, 2019 04 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30940171

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to 40% of parous women which adversely affects the quality of life. During a life time, 20% of all women will undergo an operation. In general the guidelines advise a vaginal operation in case of uterine descent: hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament plication (VH), sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) or a modified Manchester operation (MM). In the last decade, renewed interest in uterus sparing techniques has been observed. Previous studies have shown non-inferiority between SSH and VH. Whether or not SSH and MM are comparable concerning anatomical and functional outcome is still unknown. The practical application of both operations is at least in The Netherlands a known cause of practice pattern variation (PPV). To reveal any difference between both techniques the SAM-study was designed. METHODS: The SAM-study is a randomized controlled multicentre non-inferiority study which compares SSH and MM. Women with symptomatic POP in any stage, uterine descent and POP-Quantification (POP-Q) point D at ≤ minus 1 cm are eligible. The primary outcome is the composite outcome at two years of absence of prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment, the absence of bulge symptoms and absence of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary outcomes are hospital parameters, surgery related morbidity/complications, pain perception, further treatments for prolapse or urinary incontinence, POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, quality-of-life, sexual function, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months. Additionally at 12 weeks, 6 and 9 months cost-effectiveness will be assessed. Validated questionnaires will be used and gynaecological examination will be performed. Analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat and per protocol principle. With a non-inferiority margin of 9% and an expected loss to follow-up of 10%, 424 women will be needed to prove non-inferiority with a confidence interval of 95%. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness and costs of SSH versus MM in women with primary POP. The evidence will show whether the existing PPV is detrimental and a de-implementation process regarding one of the operations is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 6978, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 29 January 2018. Prospectively registered.


Assuntos
Prolapso de Órgão Pélvico/cirurgia , Ligamento Redondo do Útero/cirurgia , Útero/cirurgia , Vagina/cirurgia , Adulto , Feminino , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos em Ginecologia/métodos , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos , Prolapso de Órgão Pélvico/psicologia , Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Telas Cirúrgicas , Inquéritos e Questionários , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Int Urogynecol J ; 30(4): 565-573, 2019 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30159720

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare medium-term efficacy and safety of a partially absorbable mesh kit and native tissue repair in pelvic organ prolapse (POP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women with primary POP stage ≥ II were randomized to transvaginal trocar-guided partially absorbable mesh (81 women) or native tissue repair (82 women). Primary outcome was overall anatomical success (POP < stage II) at 24 months. Secondary outcomes were composite success, global improvement, and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-nine (85%) of the women allocated to partially absorbable mesh underwent mesh surgery; 8 (10%) crossed over to native tissue repair and 4 women (5%) withdrew from the study. Eighty (98%) of the women allocated to native tissue repair underwent the assigned treatment and 2 (2%) withdrew. Twenty-four months later, 140 surgically treated women (89%) demonstrated an overall anatomical success of 39%; 45% (32 out of 71 women) for mesh, and 32% (22 out of 69) for native tissue repair (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.2). Composite success was 88 and 73% respectively (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.4). There was global improvement in 86% (48 out of 56 women) in the mesh group and in 77% (47 out of 60 women) in the native tissue group (RR: 1.1, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.3). Four women were diagnosed with mesh exposure at 2 years (6%). CONCLUSION: At 24 months, no significant anatomical or composite benefit of partially absorbable mesh over native tissue repair could be demonstrated in women who had been surgically treated for primary POP.


Assuntos
Implantes Absorvíveis , Prolapso de Órgão Pélvico/cirurgia , Telas Cirúrgicas , Vagina/cirurgia , Implantes Absorvíveis/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Feminino , Seguimentos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos em Ginecologia/efeitos adversos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos em Ginecologia/métodos , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Reoperação , Comportamento Sexual , Telas Cirúrgicas/efeitos adversos , Suturas , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...