It was reported via journal article: "title: a pilot study on vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for patients with uterovaginal prolapse." author: walter s.Von pechmann, md, matthew j.Aungst, md,þ daniel d.Gruber, md,þ pari m.Ghodsi, md, david f.Cruess, phd, cph,þ and kenneth r.Griffis.Citation: female pelvic med reconstr surg 2011;17: 115y119.The primary objective of the study was to compare the short-term anatomic outcomes and complication rates between the 2 groups with secondary objective to determine whether transvaginal mesh attachment to the vaginal apex resulted in shorter operative times than laparoscopic mesh attachment to the vaginal apex.Seventy patients with uterovaginal prolapse were included.Between 01-jan-2006 and 31-dec-2008, 26 female patients (mean age sd of 55.8 years [11.5 years]) underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (ls); and between 01-jan-2007 and 31-dec-2008, 47 female patients (mean age sd of 59.4 years [9.6 years]) underwent vaginally assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpexy (vals).Ls and vals utilized gynemesh or prolene soft which were sutured to the upper anterior and posterior vaginal walls using ethibond/nylon (ls group) and goretex/nylon (vals group).In vals group, postoperative complications included ileus (n=1) which responded to conservative treatment and mesh extrusion (n=1) which was managed with continued observation only.There was no significant difference in short-term anatomic outcomes or complication rates between groups.
|