Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study

被引:6
|
作者
Li, Junwei [1 ]
Sima, Yizhen [1 ]
Hu, Changdong [1 ]
Wang, Xiaojuan [1 ]
Lu, Zhiying [1 ]
Hua, Keqin [1 ]
Chen, Yisong [1 ]
机构
[1] Fudan Univ, Dept Gynecol, Obstet & Gynecol Hosp, 128 Shenyang Rd, Shanghai 200090, Peoples R China
关键词
Transvaginal single-port laparoscopy; Sacrocolpopexy; Pelvic organ prolapse; Mesh; SYMPTOMS; REPAIR;
D O I
10.1186/s12893-022-01535-w
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard treatment for apical prolapse. With the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, the new approach of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TS-LSC) has become available. However, its therapeutic effects remain unclear. The aim of this study is to compare the middle-term clinical outcomes of transvaginal single-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for apical prolapse. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study. Patients with advanced apical prolapse who underwent either TS-LSC or LSC between May 2017 to June 2019 were enrolled. Baseline demographics, perioperative results, perioperative and postoperative complications, pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) scores, pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) score and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual function questionnaire (PISQ-12) score were collected at 2 years. Results 89 subjects were analyzed: 46 in TS-LSC and 43 in LSC group. Follow-up time was 38.67 +/- 7.46 vs 41.81 +/- 7.13 months, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were similar except that pain score was lower (2.37 +/- 0.90 vs 3.74 +/- 1.05) and cosmetic score was higher (9.02 +/- 0.75 vs 7.21 +/- 0.89) in TS-LSC group (P < 0.05). Complication rates did not differ between groups. 3 mesh exposure in each group were noted. Recurrence rate was 2.17% in TS-LSC and 6.98% in LSC, no apical recurrence occurred. Constipation was the most common postoperative symptom. Besides, patients in TS-LSC group had better POP-Q C point (- 6.83 +/- 0.54 vs - 6.39 +/- 0.62, P < 0.05), and similar Aa, Ap and TVL values. Bladder and pelvic symptoms were improved in both groups, but colorectal symptoms were not relieved. There were no differences of PISQ-12 scores between groups. Conclusion TS-LSC was not inferior to LSC at 2 years. Patients may benefit from its mild pain, better cosmetic effect and better apical support as well as good safety and efficacy. TS-LSC is a promising considerable choice for advanced vaginal apical prolapse. Trial registration ChiCTR2000032334, 2020-4-26 (retrospectively registered)
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Transvaginal single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study
    Junwei Li
    Yizhen Sima
    Changdong Hu
    Xiaojuan Wang
    Zhiying Lu
    Keqin Hua
    Yisong Chen
    BMC Surgery, 22
  • [2] Laparoscopic Single-Port Versus Traditional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
    Casaccia, Marco
    Palombo, Denise
    Razzore, Andrea
    Firpo, Emma
    Gallo, Fabio
    Fornaro, Rosario
    JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2019, 23 (03)
  • [3] Transvaginal Single-Port Laparoscopy Sacrocolpopexy
    Chen, Yisong
    Li, Junwei
    Zhang, Ying
    Hua, Keqin
    JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 25 (04) : 585 - 588
  • [4] Single-Port Cholecystectomy Versus Multi-Port Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study with 222 Patients
    Markus J. Wagner
    Hans Kern
    Alexander Hapfelmeier
    Jan Mehler
    Michael H. Schoenberg
    World Journal of Surgery, 2013, 37 : 991 - 998
  • [5] Single-Port Cholecystectomy Versus Multi-Port Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study with 222 Patients
    Wagner, Markus J.
    Kern, Hans
    Hapfelmeier, Alexander
    Mehler, Jan
    Schoenberg, Michael H.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2013, 37 (05) : 991 - 998
  • [6] Comparison of Outcomes Between Single-Port Robotic Sacrocolpopexy and Multi-Port Approaches
    Ferrigni, E.
    Mead-Harvey, C.
    Quillen, J.
    Butler, K.
    Khan, A.
    Wolter, C.
    Cornella, J.
    Yi, J.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2025, 145 (5S): : 51S - 52S
  • [7] Single-port versus multi-port laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer in elderly patients
    Tokuoka, Masayoshi
    Ide, Yoshihito
    Takeda, Mitsunobu
    Hirose, Hajime
    Hashimoto, Yasuji
    Matsuyama, Jin
    Yokoyama, Shigekazu
    Fukushima, Yukio
    Sasaki, Yo
    ONCOLOGY LETTERS, 2016, 12 (02) : 1465 - 1470
  • [8] An Ergonomic Study of Single-Port versus Multi-Port Laparoscopic Mesh Insertion for Ventral Hernia Repair
    Lopez-Cano, M.
    Pereira, J. A.
    Mojal, S.
    Lozoya, R.
    Quiles, M. T.
    Arbos, M. A.
    Armengol-Carrasco, M.
    EUROPEAN SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2012, 49 (3-4) : 107 - 112
  • [9] Single-port Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Beyond the Learning Curve: A Retrospective Comparison With Multi-port Laparoscopic Appendectomy
    Assali, Sarah
    Eapen, Sarah
    Carman, Terry
    Horattas, Sophia
    Daigle, Christopher R.
    Paranjape, Charudutt
    SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY ENDOSCOPY & PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES, 2018, 28 (05): : 291 - 294
  • [10] Single-port Versus Multi-port Robotic-assisted Procedures From the Patient's Perspective: A Retrospective Cohort Study
    Morgantini, Luca A.
    Del Pino, Matthew
    Bharadwaj, Arthi
    Ganesh, Ashwin
    Egan, Erin
    Del Giudice, Francesco
    Crivellaro, Simone
    UROLOGY PRACTICE, 2022, 9 (06) : 575 - 579