Moreno-Mira R, García-Montes F, Lizarbe-Iranzo R, Martín-Jiménez Á

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 447-453
PDF size: 359.42 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of age on laparoscopic colposacropexy (LCS) outcome and complications for pelvic organ prolapse.
Material and methods: A retrospective and comparative study of 105 patients who underwent standard LCS for Baden-Walker graded pelvic organ prolapse from February 2002 to March 2015. They were categorized into two groups according to age. Group 1 consisted in ≤50 years old patients and included 55 women. Group 2 included 50 women who were ≥ 60 years old. Outcomes and complications were compared in both groups.
Results: Previous history of abdominal surgery or surgery for pelvic floor disorders was significantly greater in group 2 (43.6 vs 70%). There was no significant difference regarding urinary stress incontinence, urge incontinence or severe organ prolapse between groups (47.2 vs 36%; 1.8 vs 8% and 90.9 vs 92% for Groups 1 and 2 respectively). Although a statistically significant greater proportion of vaginal vault prolapse was present in the elderly group (16.3 vs 38%), the same LCS surgical technique was used in both groups of patients. Despite operating time was significantly greater in the younger group (205.8 ± 53.4 minutes in Group 1 vs 182 ± 42.3 minutes in Group 2), hospital stay was similar in both groups (2.9 ± 1.1 days vs 3.0 ± 1.9 days in group 1 and group 2 respectively). Postoperative complications were not severe and there were no clinically significant differences between groups (20 vs 14%). We found no statistically differences between groups when comparing cure rates (87 vs 92%) in groups 1 and 2 respectively, patient satisfaction and postoperative anatomical findings.
Conclusions: LCS has shown excellent cure rates in both young and elder female patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

REFERENCES

1. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, Zyczynski H. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:805-23.

2. Robinson BL, Parnell BA, Sandbulte JT, Geller EJ, Connolly A, Matthews CA.Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2013 Jul-Aug;19(4):230-7.

3. Khan A, Alperin M, Wu N, Clemens JQ, Dubina E, Pashos CL, Anger JT. Comparative outcomes of open versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy among Medicare beneficiaries. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:1883-91.

4. Ganatra AM, Rozet F, Sanchez-Salas R, Barret E, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Vallancien G. The current status of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a review. Eur Urol 2009; 55:1089-103.

5. Oliphant SS, Jones KA, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL. Trends over time with commonly performed obstetric and gynecologic inpatient procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:926-31.

6. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013.

7. Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H, Kohli N, Goldman HB, Lucente V; Pelvic Surgeons Network. Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:5-9.

8. Stepp KJ, Barber MD, Yoo EH, Whiteside JL, Paraiso MF, Walters MD. Incidence of perioperative complications of urogynecologic surgery in elderly women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1630-6.

9. Toglia MR, Nolan TE. Morbidity and mortality rates of elective gynecologic surgery in the elderly woman. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003 189:1584-7.

10. Pollak JT, Davila GW, Kopka SL, Ciocon J. Urogynecological and reconstructive pelvic surgery in women aged 80 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:851-2.