title: A comparison of different pelvic reconstruction surgeries using mesh for pelvic organ prolapse patients.
abstract: This study was carried out in order to compare the effects in different surgeries using mesh in pelvic organ prolapse patients whose leading points were C. Thirty-nine patients were categorized into 3 groups: group A pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy; group B hysterectomy prior to pelvic reconstruction; and group C pelvic reconstruction with uterus preserved. At first visit, POP-Q stage was determined, and age, BMI, admission days, operation time, post-operative stage and complications were observed and results were analyzed and compared. All patients who were operated upon converted to stage one month following the operation, and no further change was observed except in one patient. Group admission days were not significantly different, but tended to be lower in group C. Group average operation times between 'group A and B' and 'group A and C' were statistically different. No significant difference was observed in post-operative complications between the groups, but 3 members of group A developed erosion, whereas no erosion occurred in groups B and C. Pelvic reconstruction using mesh is a highly efficient method of treating pelvic organ prolapse. Improvements in stage and post-operative complications were not significantly different in the groups. However, uteropexy showed a shorter operation time, fewer admission days, and less erosion due to mesh than conventional pelvic reconstruction with hysterectomy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, Korea. swbai@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr
authors.forename: Sang Wook
authors.initials: SW
authors.lastname: Bai
authors.forename: Euy Hyuk
authors.initials: EH
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Jong Seung
authors.initials: JS
authors.lastname: Shin
authors.forename: Sei Kwang
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Kim
authors.forename: Ki Hyun
authors.initials: KH
authors.lastname: Park
authors.forename: Dong Han
authors.initials: DH
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D010388:Pelvis / Q000601:surgery; D019651:Plastic Surgery Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D014596:Uterine Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*; D014782:Visceral Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*
references.citation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1997 Apr;57(1):57-64
references.pmid: 9175671
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):501-6
references.pmid: 9083302
references.citation: Eur Urol. 1998 Aug;34(2):111-7
references.pmid: 9693245
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Dec;92(6):999-1004
references.pmid: 9840566
references.citation: J Reprod Med. 2000 Oct;45(10):789-97
references.pmid: 11077625
references.citation: BJOG. 2001 Jan;108(1):112-3
references.pmid: 11212984
references.citation: BJOG. 2001 Jun;108(6):629-33
references.pmid: 11426899
references.citation: J Am Coll Surg. 2002 Sep;195(3):352-8
references.pmid: 12229942
references.citation: Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Oct;14(5):527-35
references.pmid: 12401983
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990 Jun;162(6):1611-5; discussion 1615-9
references.pmid: 2360594
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jun;166(6 Pt 1):1764-8; discussion 1768-71
references.pmid: 1615985
references.citation: Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994 Jun;101(6):518-22
references.pmid: 8018642
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Nov;84(5):885-8
references.pmid: 7936532
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):10-7
references.pmid: 8694033
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Oct;84(4 Pt 2):731-40
references.pmid: 9205467