Current issue
Archive
About the Journal
About us
Aims and Scope
Indexing and Abstracting
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licensing
Publication Fees
Fast-Track Paper Publication Option
Conflict Interest Guidance
Submit an Article
Special Issues
News & Editorials
“Fake,” “Predatory,” and “Pseudo” Journals: Charlatans Threatening Trust in Science
Shifting the Journal submission-review system to the Editorial System Manuscript December 27, 2017.
REVIEW ARTICLE
Surgical management of genital prolapse and combined gynecological pathologies in women: A meta-analysis
1
Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kazakh National Medical University, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN
2
Department of Health Policy and Organization, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, KAZAKHSTAN
Online publication date: 2023-01-04
Publication date: 2023-03-01
Electron J Gen Med 2023;20(2):em446
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Prolapse can be fixed using a variety of surgical procedures. The goal of the present study was to examine the current literature on various surgical techniques for treating female genital organ prolapse.
Methods:
The PubMed and Medline databases were explored for pertinent literature up through August 2022 for this meta-analysis. The terms [surgery] AND [management] AND [genital prolapse OR gynaecological diseases] AND [randomised control studies OR randomised control trials] were used as search criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered qualified using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane handbook of “Systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.
Results:
The investigations found significant difference in the heterogeneity between the groups with a 76% I2 value (p<0.00001). There was little variability among the six trials that examined robotic and laparoscopic therapy of prolapse (I2=0%, p=0.94). In six investigations, the odd ratio revealed no statistically significant difference between groups (1.05; 95% CI, 0.52, 2.12). However, generally there were no appreciable differences between robotic and laparoscopic treatment of female prolapse. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.
Conclusion:
According to this meta-analysis study, laparoscopic surgery performed better job of managing prolapse than abdominal surgery.
Prolapse can be fixed using a variety of surgical procedures. The goal of the present study was to examine the current literature on various surgical techniques for treating female genital organ prolapse.
Methods:
The PubMed and Medline databases were explored for pertinent literature up through August 2022 for this meta-analysis. The terms [surgery] AND [management] AND [genital prolapse OR gynaecological diseases] AND [randomised control studies OR randomised control trials] were used as search criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered qualified using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane handbook of “Systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.
Results:
The investigations found significant difference in the heterogeneity between the groups with a 76% I2 value (p<0.00001). There was little variability among the six trials that examined robotic and laparoscopic therapy of prolapse (I2=0%, p=0.94). In six investigations, the odd ratio revealed no statistically significant difference between groups (1.05; 95% CI, 0.52, 2.12). However, generally there were no appreciable differences between robotic and laparoscopic treatment of female prolapse. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.
Conclusion:
According to this meta-analysis study, laparoscopic surgery performed better job of managing prolapse than abdominal surgery.
REFERENCES (47)
1.
Baden WF, Walker T. Surgical repair of vaginal defects. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1992.
2.
Albo M, Dupont MC, Raz S. Transvaginal correction of pelvic prolapse. J Endourol. 1996;10(3):231-9. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.19... PMid:8740384.
3.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-... PMid:9083302.
4.
Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Rahimi S, et al. Age-related pelvic floor modifications and prolapse risk factors in postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2010;17(1):204-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/gme.0b... PMid:19629013.
5.
Smith DA. Pelvic organ prolapse. A new option offers effectiveness and ease of use. Adv Nurse Pract. 2007;15(8):39-42.
6.
Wagner TH, Hu T-W. Economic costs of urinary incontinence in 1995. Urology. 1998;51(3):355-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-... PMid:9510336.
7.
Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: Current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(7):1496-501. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.20... PMid:11408873.
8.
Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in US women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b... PMid:19935030.
9.
Larouche M, Belzile E, Geoffrion R. Surgical management of symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(6):1061-73. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.00... PMid:33957652.
10.
Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the women’s health initiative: Gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160-6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.20... PMid:12066091.
11.
Detollenaere RJ, Den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, et al. Treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: A randomized multicenter trial comparing sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (SAVE U trial). BMC Women Health. 2011;11:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6... PMid:21324143 PMCid:PMC3045971.
12.
Kow N, Goldman HB, Ridgeway B. Management options for women with uterine prolapse interested in uterine preservation. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14(5):395-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934... PMid:23700096.
13.
Hefni M, El-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E. Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(3):645-50. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.20... PMid:12634635.
14.
Antosh DD, Grotzke SA, McDonald MA, et al. Short-term outcomes of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(3):158-61. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b... PMid:22543767.
15.
Awad N, Mustafa S, Amit A, Deutsch M, Eldor-Itskovitz J, Lowenstein L. Implementation of a new procedure: laparoscopic versus robotic sacrocolpopexy. Arch Gynecol Obstetrics. 2013;287(6):1181-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404... PMid:23274792.
16.
Chen SSC, Pang SMW, Cheung TH, Cheung RYK, Chung TKH. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: With or without robotic assistance. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(1):54-60.
17.
Ottosen C, Lingman G, Ottosen L. Three methods for hysterectomy: A randomised, prospective study of short term outcome. BJOG. 2000;107(11):1380-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471... PMid:11117766.
18.
Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Schraffordt Koops SE. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: A randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):209-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192... PMid:19834635 PMCid:PMC2808513.
19.
Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: Multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3... PMid:26206451 PMCid:PMC4512203.
20.
Hwang J-L, Seow K-M, Tsai Y-L, Huang L-W, Hsieh B-C, Lee C. Comparative study of vaginal, laparoscopically assisted vaginal and abdominal hysterectomies for uterine myoma larger than 6 cm in diameter or uterus weighing at least 450 g: A prospective randomized study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81(12):1132-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600... PMid:12519109.
21.
Miskry T, Magos A. Randomized, prospective, double-blind comparison of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy in women without uterovaginal prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(4):351-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600... PMid:12716320.
22.
Härkki-Siren P, Sjöberg J, Toivonen J, Tiitinen A. Clinical outcome and tissue trauma after laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy: A randomized controlled study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79(10):866-71. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600... PMid:11304971.
23.
Seracchioli R, Venturoli S, Vianello F, et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal hysterectomy in the presence of a large uterus. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2002;9(3):333-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-... PMid:12101331.
24.
Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005-13. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b... PMid:21979458.
25.
Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(1):44-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b... PMid:22453672.
26.
Seror J, Yates DR, Seringe E, et al. Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. World J Urol. 2012;30(3):393-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345... PMid:21858540.
27.
Hefni MA, El-Toukhy TA. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127(2):257-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejog... PMid:16377061.
28.
Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack MC, Murray CJ, Milligan M, Schluter P. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12(6):381-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192... PMid:11795641.
29.
Lo TS, Pue LB, Hung TH, Wu PY, Tan YL. Long‐term outcome of native tissue reconstructive vaginal surgery for advanced pelvic organ prolapse at 86 months: Hysterectomy versus hysteropexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41(7):1099-107. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12... PMid:25808989.
30.
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/978111....
31.
Hagen S, Thakar R. Conservative management of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynaecol Reprode Med. 2012;22(5):118-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogrm....
32.
Dieter AA. Pelvic organ prolapse: Controversies in surgical treatment. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2021;48(3):437-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.... PMid:34416930.
33.
Brown JS, Waetjen LE, Subak LL, Thom DH, Van Den Eeden S, Vittinghoff E. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(4):712-6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.20... PMid:11967496.
34.
Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecology. 2004;104(4):805-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG... PMid:15458906.
35.
Jelovsek JE, Gantz MG, Lukacz E, et al. Success and failure are dynamic, recurrent event states after surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224(4):362.e1-.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog... PMid:33039390 PMCid:PMC8009767.
36.
Goode PS, FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, et al. Enhancing participation of older women in surgical trials. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(3):303-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamc... PMid:18722933 PMCid:PMC3208315.
37.
FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Siddique S, Thompson P, Zyczynski H. Colpocleisis: A review. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17(3):261-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192... PMid:15983731.
38.
Schweitzer KJ, Vierhout ME, Milani AL. Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in women of 80 years of age and older. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(3):286-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0001... PMid:15715538.
39.
Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.3... PMid:18799443 PMCid:PMC2918416.
40.
Digesu GA, Chaliha C, Salvatore S, Hutchings A, Khullar V. The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity tosymptoms and quality of life. BJOG. 2005;112(7):971-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471... PMid:15958002.
41.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/146518....
42.
Maher C. ICI 2012: Pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192... PMid:24142053.
43.
Iglesia CB, Hale DS, Lucente VR. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal mesh for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):363-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192... PMid:22930214.
44.
Freeman R, Pantazis K, Thomson A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):377-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192... PMid:22864764.
45.
Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, et al. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: A review. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1089-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euru... PMid:19201521.
46.
Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE. Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2):367-73. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b... PMid:19155908.
47.
Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Smith V, Edwards SR, Clark AL. Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):555.e1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog... PMid:18355779.
| eISSN: | 2516-3507 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
