Laparoscopic pelvic organ suspension with mesh: a modified technique and primary results

• Autor(a) principal: Khodaei,Shahin
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Ghahramani,Leila, Khazraei,Hajar, Hosseini,Seyed Vahid
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Journal of Coloproctology (Rio de Janeiro. Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2237-93632019000400326
• topic: Pelvic organ prolapsed; Incontinence; Mesh; Wexner's score; Altomare's ODS score

Abstract Background Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence rate is an important issue which impacts the patient's quality of life and results in a new surgical procedure. We use a new technique of laparoscopic pelvic organ suspension (rectal suspension) for pelvic organ prolapse treatment in our center. We evaluated the results of this technique, three months after surgery and at the time of study reporting. Methods All patients with pelvic organ prolapse for whom laparoscopic pelvic organ prolapse had been done were evaluated. Data were collected from the patient's charts and their short term follow up 3 months after the surgery and their last follow up visit. Demographic, history, physical examination, Wexner's fecal incontinence score and Altomare's Obstructed Defecation Syndrome score, post-operation complications and patient's satisfaction were analyzed, retrospectively. Results All patients were female with a mean age of 57 ± 11.43 years (range 32-86 years). Mean BMI was 26.1 ± 3.73. Nine patients had rectal bleeding (31%), 18 had prolonged or difficult defecation (62%), 16 had rectal prolapse (55.2%), 11 had gas incontinence (37.9%), 9 had liquid stool incontinence (31%), 5 had stool incontinence (17.2%), 9 had vaginal prolapse (31%), 23 had constipation (79.3%), 9 complaint of pelvic pain (31%), 9 had urge or stress urinary incontinence (31%) and 13 had dyspareunia (44.8%). Conclusions In conclusion, we believe this procedure has good results in short term follow up (3 months after surgery), but a high recurrence rate in the middle term follow up. Therefore, this procedure is no longer recommended.