Vaginal paravaginal repair: One-year outcomes

Young, Stephen B.; Daman, Jennifer J.; Bony, Laura G.

doi:10.1067/mob.2001.119073

Cited by 96 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Wobei das vaginale Vorgehen zweifelsohne in der Durchführung komplexer und mit einer deutlich höhe-ren Rate an Komplikation verknüpft ist [12]. Young et al [13] berichten in bis zu 23% der Fälle von schweren Komplikation. Besonders für den Fall eines parallel vorliegenden apikalen Deszensus ergeben sich zusätzlich Vorteile aus einem transabdominellen Zugang, da sich durch gleichzeitige Sicherung des apikalen Scheidengewölbes eine höhere Erfolgsrate gegenüber dem vaginalen Vorgehen über einen Beobachtungszeitraum von 2,5 Jahren ergeben hat [14,15].…”

Section: Anteriore Netzeunclassified

Deszensuschirurgie

Hamann

Bauer²

2011

Urologe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The systematic assessment of common therapy concepts for female genital prolapse has led to a better understanding of the functional and anatomical connections and given proof of the lasting effectiveness of traditional surgery. Besides the defined evidence-based therapy strategies in vaginal prolapse repair, vaginal meshes are being used with increasing frequency. The lack of reliable therapy recommendations for these methods sounds us a note of caution in their application and underlines the necessity of standardised performance in experienced departments.

show abstract

Section: Anteriore Netzeunclassified

Deszensuschirurgie

Hamann

Bauer²

2011

Urologe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic approaches, all with variable success rates [6,7]. Many studies reported in the early literature have demonstrated outcomes solely in terms of anatomical restoration [8][9][10][11][12]. More recently, there has been a shift of emphasis on reported outcomes to include functional restoration [5,7,13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symptomatic and quality of life outcomes after site-specific fascial reattachment for pelvic organ prolapse repair

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess symptomatic and quality of life outcome scores following site specific fascial reattachment surgery for pelvic organ prolapse using the validated Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL) questionnaires. One hundred and ninety two women underwent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse; ninety four underwent anterior repair (thirty four of them had vaginal hysterectomy), and ninety eight had posterior repair. Patients filled P-QOL questionnaires 24 hours prior to surgery and a postal P-QOL questionnaire six months post operatively. Pre and post operative questionnaires were paired. Quality of life and symptoms scores were calculated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. One hundred and one women returned their questionnaires and were suitable to include in the study. Forty nine underwent anterior repair (fifteen had vaginal hysterectomy) and 52 underwent posterior repair. Quality of life scores showed significant improvement in the anterior and posterior repair groups with the exception of general health in the anterior repair group and general health and prolapse impact in the posterior repair group. Anterior repair significantly improved urinary voiding and storage symptoms. Posterior repair group showed significant improvement in defecatory symptoms. Both groups showed improvement in sexual function and general prolapse symptoms. Prolapse repair with site specific fascial reattachment results in significant improvement in quality of life scores six months after surgery. Anterior repair improves urinary voiding and storage symptoms and posterior repair improves defecatory dysfunction and urinary voiding. Sexual function improves following prolapse repair with site specific fascial reattachment.

show abstract

“…In 2001, Young published his series of 100 VPVR cases demonstrating good anatomic results, with a mean follow-up of 11 months [4]. However, without a comparison group, it was not possible to determine if the addition of VPVR resulted in improved durability of anterior compartment support and/or improved rates of symptom relief compared with AC alone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Midline anterior repair alone vs anterior repair plus vaginal paravaginal repair: a comparison of anatomic and quality of life outcomes

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim was to study the anatomic recurrence rates and quality of life outcomes of patients who had undergone either anterior colporrhaphy (AC) or anterior colporrhaphy and vaginal paravaginal repair (AC + VPVR) as part of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Chart reviews were used to identify anatomic prolapse recurrence. Phone interviews assessed quality of life outcomes [Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ)] outcomes. There was a trend towards longer time to anatomic recurrence (any compartment > or =grade 2) in the AC group compared with the AC + VPVR group (median 24 vs 13 months, p=0.069). If only patients who had undergone previous surgery were compared, time to anatomic recurrence appeared significantly longer in the AC group (median 41 vs 12 months, p=0.022). There were 55% of women in the AC group and 46% of women in the AC + VPVR group who reported significant bladder or bulge symptoms based on responses to the phone-administered UDI and IIQ (p=0.89). Our retrospective study did not suggest that adding VPVR was superior in terms of anatomic or quality of life outcomes. Prospective assessment of the role of VPVR in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse is needed.

show abstract

Vaginal paravaginal repair: One-year outcomes

Cited by 96 publications

References 4 publications

Deszensuschirurgie

Deszensuschirurgie

Symptomatic and quality of life outcomes after site-specific fascial reattachment for pelvic organ prolapse repair

Midline anterior repair alone vs anterior repair plus vaginal paravaginal repair: a comparison of anatomic and quality of life outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About