Comparative assessment Of life quality of patients after the correction of genital prolapse with different synthetic implants

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

There was made a comparative analysis of surgical complications, life quality of patients and also sexual life quality after the correction of genital prolapse with the implants Prosima™ and Prolift™. There were reflected the advantages of the operation when the implants Prosima™ were used while correcting the genital prolapsed of III stage compared with the use of the implant Prolift™. There was shown the success of the operation Prosima™, its safety because of little invasiveness and few number of complications, satisfaction of the patients with the results of the treatment and also the improvement of the life quality and restoration of sexual activity.

About the authors

Vitaliy Fedorovich Bezhenar

D. O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RAMS

Email: bez-vitaly@yandex.ru
Doctor of medical scienes, professor, The Head of Operative Gynecology Department

Yevgeniya Sergeyevna Guseva

D. O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RAMS

Email: guseva.es@mail.ru
PhD student of department of Operative Gynecology

Anna Alekseyevna Tsypurdeyeva

D. O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RAMS

Email: Tsypurdeeva@mail.ru
assistant professor of Operative Gynecology Department

Yelena Ivanovna Rusina

D. O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RAMS

Email: pismo_rusina@mail.ru
assistant professor of Operative Gynecology Department

Liliya Karlovna Tsuladze

D. O. Ott Research Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, RAMS

Email: iag@mail.ru
obstetrician gynecologist of Operative Gynecology Department

References

  1. Беженарь В. Ф., Богатырева Е. В. Диагностика и хирургическое лечение ректоцеле при пролапсе тазвых органов с использванием системы ProliftTM // Журнал акушерства и женских болезней. — 2010. — Т. LIX (2). — С. 12–20.
  2. Беженарь В. Ф., Богатырева Е. В. Новые возможности хирургической коррекции тазового пролапса с использованием синтетических имплантов: пути профилактики послеоперационных осложнений. // Акушерство. Гинекология. Репродукция. — 2012. — Т. 6 (2). — С. 6–13.
  3. Гвоздев М. Ю., Тупикина Н. В., Пушкарь Д. Ю., Касян Г. Р. Первый опыт применения в России бестроакарных сетчатых технологий в лечении больных с тазовым пролапсом // Российский вестник акушера-гинеколога. — 2012. — Т. 5. — С. 57–63.
  4. Коршунов М. Ю., Сазыкина Е. И. Опросник ПД-КЖ — валидированный способ оценки симптомов дисфункций тазового дна и качества жизни у пациенток с пролапсом тазовых органов // Журнал акушерства и женских болезней. — 2008. — Т. LVII (3). — С. 86–93.
  5. Куликовский В. Ф., Олейник Н. В. Тазовый пролапс у женщин: руководство для врачей. М: ГЭОТАР-Медиа, 2008.
  6. Полянин Д. Ф., Лукач А. А., Британ М. С., Ольховикова С. В. Решение проблемы тазового пролапса при помощи системы Prosima Журнал акушерства и женских болезней. — 2011. — Т. LX (спецвып.). — С. 67.
  7. Al-Salihi S., Lim J., Carey M. Video demonstration of vaginal surgery for prolapse using mesh and a vaginal support device // Int. Urogynecol. J. — 2009. — Vol. 20 (suppl. 2). — P. S188–189.
  8. Altman D., Väyrynen T., Engh M. E. at al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapsed // N. Engl. J. Med. — 2011. — Vol. 364 (19). — P. 826–836.
  9. Baginska J. E. Prosima — a new device for pelvic organ prolapse repair. An initial experience // Eur. Urol. — 2011. — Vol. 10 (9 suppl.). — P. 622.
  10. Boyles S. H., Weber A. M., Meyn L. Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979–1997 // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2003. — Vol. 188. — P. 108–115.
  11. Cervigni M., Natale F. A comprehensive view on the actual trend in pelvic organ prolapse repair // Abdom. Imaging. — 2013. — Vol. 38 (5). — P. 884–893.
  12. Chen J., Zhu L., Lang J. H., Shi H. H. at al. Prospective study on total pelvic reconstruction surgery with Prosima in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse stage III. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. — 2012. — Vol. 47 (9). — P. 664–668.
  13. FDA’s recent report raises legitimate concerns about surgical mesh for POP repair. “Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”. July 2011. Food and Drug Administration Website. Available at: http://www.fda.
  14. Fritel Xavier, Varnoux Noëlle, Zins Marie, Breart Gérard, Ringa Virginie. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse at midlife, quality of life, and risk factors // Obstet. Gynecol. — 2009. — Vol. 113 (3). — P. 609–616.
  15. Handa V., Cundiff G., Chang H. et al. Female sexual function and pelvic floor disorders. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2008. — Vol. 111. — P. 1045–1052.
  16. Huser M., Pastorakova M., Belkov I., Sedlakova K. Outcomes of anterior vaginal wall repair using polypropylene mesh // Česka Gynecol. — 2012. — Vol. 77 (5). — P. 407–413.
  17. Lermann J., Häberle L., Merk S., Henglein K., Beckmann M. W., Mueller A., Mehlhorn G. Comparison of prevalence of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women after five different hysterectomy procedures // Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. Available online 10 January 2013.
  18. Lin Tzu-Yin, Su Tsung-Hsien, Huang Wen-Chu. Polypropylene mesh used for adjuvant reconstructive surgical treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapsed // J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. — 2010. — Vol. 36 (5). — P. 1059–1063.
  19. Lucente Vincente, Murphy Miles, Saiz Cristina. Vaginal prolapse repair: suture repair versus mesh augmentation. Controversies in Female Pelvic Reconstruction. — 2012. — Vol. 39. — P. 325–333
  20. Luft J. Pelvic organ prolapse: current state of knowledge about this common condition // J. Nurse Pract. — 2006. — Vol. 2. — P. 170–177.
  21. Muffly T. M., Barber M. D. Insertion and removal of vaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse // Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. — 201053 (1):99–114.
  22. Sayer T., Lim J., Gauld J. M. et al. Prosima Study Investigators. Medium-term clinical outcomes following surgical repair for vaginal prolapse with tension-free mesh and vaginal support device // Int. Urogynecol. J. — 2012. — Vol. 23 (4). — P. 487–93.
  23. Slack M., Carey M. P., Smith D. J., Robinson D. Clinical experience of a novel vaginal support device and balloon used to simplify mesh augmented vaginal surgery for prolapse // Int. Urogynecol. Journal — 2009. — Vol. 20 (suppl. 2). — P. S73–S239.
  24. Reynolds S., Gold K., Ni Shenghua et al. Immediate effects of the initial FDA notification on the use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse surgery in medicare beneficiaries. N.Y.: Wiley Periodicals. — 2012.
  25. Togami J. M., Brown E., Winters J. C. Vaginal mesh - the controversy. In: Section of Female Urology and Voiding Dysfunction, Ochsner Clinic Foundation. New Orleans: Published online. — 2012.
  26. Zielinski R., Miller J., Low L. K., Sampselle C., DeLancey J. O. L. The relationship between pelvic organ prolapse, genital body image, and sexual health. Neurourology Urodynamics. — 2012. — Vol. 31. — P. 1145–1148.
  27. Zyczynski H. M., Carey M. P., Smith A. R. et al. One-year clinical outcomes after prolapse surgery with nonanchored mesh and vaginal support device // Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. — 2010. — Vol. 203 (6). — P. 587–589.
  28. Zyczynski H. М., Slack M., Reisenauer C. et al. A new operation for vaginal prolapse repair using mesh and a vaginal support device: 1 year anatomic and functional results of an international multicentre study // Int. Urogynecol. J. — 2009. — Vol. 20 (suppl.2). — P. 157–158.

Copyright (c) 2013 Bezhenar V.F., Guseva Y.S., Tsypurdeyeva A.A., Rusina Y.I., Tsuladze L.K.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies