Email this article Laparoscopic correction of combined forms of genital prolapse
- Authors: Bryunin D.V.1, Chushkov Y.V.1, Pyatkina A.N.1
-
Affiliations:
- I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
- Issue: Vol 10, No 2 (2023)
- Pages: 113-122
- Section: Original study articles
- Submitted: 16.06.2023
- Accepted: 16.06.2023
- Published: 16.06.2023
- URL: https://archivog.com/2313-8726/article/view/496640
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/2313-8726-2023-10-2-113-122
- ID: 496640
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The significance of pelvic organ prolapse is determined by the absence of a downward trend in its frequency and severity and by the steadily high number of recurrences in every third woman who underwent surgery. According to most authors, surgical correction is the primary treatment for genital prolapse. Therefore, the search for an effective and safe surgical treatment of this pathology is important. Currently, various minimally invasive surgical interventions have been performed via laparoscopic access, which reduces the risk of tissue or adjacent organ damage, possible intraoperative bleeding, and potential complications.
AIM: This study aimed to assess the efficiency and safety of laparoscopic techniques for the correction of genital prolapse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 12 patients with pelvic organ prolapse quantification system grades II–IV who underwent surgical correction using a combined laparoscopic approach. The inclusion criterion was the presence of prolapse, including recurrent forms. At the outpatient stage, the patients’ medical history was collected, and complaints, and degree of pelvic organ prolapse were assessed. Genital prolapse was diagnosed based on medical history, clinical data, and additional methods of examination.
RESULTS: With this surgical intervention technique, intraoperative bleeding was avoided, the number of possible postoperative complications was reduced, and disease recurrence was prevented. The criteria for assessing the surgical intervention included improvement of the pelvic floor anatomy, elimination of symptoms, patient’s satisfaction with treatment results and quality of life, and reduced risk of recurrence of complications. Mesh-associated complications were excluded by avoiding contact of the synthetic implanted material with the vaginal mucosa.
CONCLUSIONS: Through laparoscopic access, the length of hospital stay was reduced, and compared with abdominal access, a better cosmetic effect was achieved. A comprehensive system considering the assessment of the anatomical outcome, functional status of the pelvic floor, and patient’s quality of life may become the most objective tool to evaluate the success of surgical treatment of genital prolapse.
Full Text
About the authors
Dmitrii V. Bryunin
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Email: bryun777@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5969-4217
MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor
Russian Federation, 8, building 2, Trubetskaya str. Moscow, 119991Yurii V. Chushkov
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Email: obstetrics-gynecology@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8125-1829
MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), assistant professor
Russian Federation, 8, building 2, Trubetskaya str. Moscow, 119991Alina N. Pyatkina
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Author for correspondence.
Email: patkinaalina@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4260-9661
post-graduate student
Russian Federation, 8, building 2, Trubetskaya str. Moscow, 119991References
- Abhyankar P, Uny I, Semple K, et al. Women’s experiences of receiving care for pelvic organ prolapse: a qualitative study. BMC Women’s Health. 2019;19(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0741-2
- Kulakov VI, Adamyan LV, Mynbaev OA, Sashin BE, Blinova MA. Khirurgicheskoye lecheniye opushcheniya i vypadeniya vlagalishcha i matki. In: Kulakov VI, Adamyan LV, Mynbaev OA, editors. Operativnaya ginekologiya — khirurgicheskiye energii. Moscow: Antidor; 2000. P:741–760. (In Russ).
- Lukyanova DM, Smolnova TYu, Adamyan LV. Modern molecular genetic and biochemical predictors of genital prolapse (a review). Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2016;22(4):812. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/repro20162248-12
- Gaivoronsky IV, Niauri DA, Bessonov NYu, et al. Morphological features of the small pelvis structure, as prerequisites for developing genital prolapse. Kursk Scientific and Practical Bulletin “Man and His Health”. 2018;(2):86–93. (In Russ). doi: 10.21626/vestnik/2018-2/14
- Krasnopol’skiy VI, Buyanova SN, Shchukina NA, Popov AA. Operative gynecology. Moscow: MEDpress-inform; 2017. (In Russ).
- De Tayrac R, Sentilhes L. Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1859–1872. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2177-9
- Parshikov VV, Mironov AA, Anikina EA, et al. Prosthetic repair of the abdominal wall using light and ultra-light synthetic and titan-containing materials in high bacterial contamination (experimental study). Modern Technologies in Medicine. 2015;(4):64–71. doi: 10.17691/stm2015.7.4.08
- Sung VW, Rardin CR, Raker CA, et al. Porcine subintestinal submucosal graft augmentation for rectocele repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119(1):125–133.doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823d407e
- Radzinskiy VE, ed. Perineology. Moscow: Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; 2010. 372 p. (In Russ).
- Krasnopol’skaia IV, Popov AA, Tiurina SS, et al. Analysis of transvaginal sacrospinous fixation versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy used in the treatment of patients with genital prolapse. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2014;14(5):6670. (In Russ).
- Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Gayet-Ageron A, et al. Patient satisfaction after laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: outcome report of a continuous series of 417 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1685–1693.doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3327-2
- Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5
- Granese R, Candiani M, Perino A, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: 8 years experience. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146(2):227–231.doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.06.013
- Popov AA, Manannikova TN, Ramazanov MR, et al. Laparoskopicheskaya sakrokol’popeksiya i operatsiya Prolift v khirurgii genital’nogo prolapsa Journal of Obstetrics and Women’s Diseases. 2009;LVIII(5):M39–M40. (In Russ).
- Vasin RV, Filimonov VB, Vasina IV. Genital prolapse: contemporary aspects of surgical treatment (literature review). Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2017;(1):104–115. (In Russ).
- Krot IF, Zakharenkova TN. Ethiopathogenetic aspects of pelvic organ prolapse. Optimization of surgical treatment. Problems of Health and Ecology. 2013;(1):16–22. (In Russ).
- Dietz HP. Pelvic floor ultrasound in prolapse: what’s in it for the surgeon? Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(10):1221–1232.doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1459-3
- Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, Milsom I. Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after childbirth: a national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;120(2):152–160.doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12020
- Korshunov MYu. Prolaps tazovykh organov u zhenshchin: personalizirovannyi podkhod k diagnostike, khirurgicheskoi korrektsii i otsenke rezul’tatov lecheniya [dissertation]. Saint Petersburg; 2017. Available from: https://www.dissercat.com/content/prolaps-tazovykh-organov-u-zhenshchin-personalizirovannyi-podkhod-k-diagnostike-khirurgiches?ysclid=leenoh6t9j835517255 (In Russ).
- Korshunov MYu, Sazykina EI. PD-QL questionnaire ― validated instrument for symptoms and quality of life assessment in patients with pelvic organ prolapsed. Journal of Obstetrics and Women’s Diseases. 2008;57(3):86–93. (In Russ).
Supplementary files
