SwePub
Sök i LIBRIS databas

  Extended search

id:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:umu-164738"
 

Search: id:"swepub:oai:DiVA.org:umu-164738" > Repair of recurrent...

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Repair of recurrent rectocele with posterior colporrhaphy or non-absorbable polypropylene mesh : patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up.

Nüssler, Emil (author)
Umeå universitet,Obstetrik och gynekologi
Granåsen, Gabriel (author)
Umeå universitet,Obstetrik och gynekologi
Nüssler, Emil Karl (author)
Umeå universitet,Obstetrik och gynekologi
show more...
Bixo, Marie (author)
Umeå universitet,Obstetrik och gynekologi
Löfgren, Mats, 1949- (author)
Umeå universitet,Obstetrik och gynekologi
show less...
 (creator_code:org_t)
2019-01-09
2019
English.
In: International Urogynecology Journal. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0937-3462 .- 1433-3023. ; 30:10, s. 1679-1687
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)
Abstract Subject headings
Close  
  • INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to compare the results of repair of isolated, recurrent, posterior vaginal wall prolapse using standard posterior colporrhaphy versus non-absorbable polypropylene mesh in a routine health care setting.METHODS: This cohort study was based on prospectively collected data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery. All patients operated for recurrent, posterior vaginal wall prolapse in Sweden between 1 January 2006 and 30 October 2016 were included. A total of 433 women underwent posterior colporrhaphy, and 193 were operated using non-absorbable mesh. Data up to 1 year were collected.RESULTS: The 1-year patient-reported cure rate was higher for the mesh group compared with the colporrhaphy group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-4.35], corresponding to a number needed to treat of 9.7. Patient satisfaction (OR = 2.38; CI 1.2-4.97) and improvement (OR = 2.13; CI 1.02-3.82) were higher in the mesh group. However, minor surgeon-reported complications were more frequent with mesh (OR = 2.74; CI 1.51-5.01). Patient-reported complications and re-operations within 12 months were comparable in the two groups.CONCLUSIONS: For patients with isolated rectocele relapse, mesh reinforcement enhances the likelihood of success compared with colporrhaphy at 1-year follow-up. Also, in our study, mesh repair was associated with greater patient satisfaction and improvement of symptoms, but an increase in minor complications. Our study indicates that the benefits of mesh reinforcement may outweigh the risks of this procedure for women with isolated recurrent posterior prolapse.

Subject headings

MEDICIN OCH HÄLSOVETENSKAP  -- Klinisk medicin -- Kirurgi (hsv//swe)
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES  -- Clinical Medicine -- Surgery (hsv//eng)

Keyword

Colporrhaphy
National register data
Non-absorbable mesh
Patient-reported outcome
Rectocele

Publication and Content Type

ref (subject category)
art (subject category)

Find in a library

To the university's database

  • 1 of 1
  • Previous record
  • Next record
  •    To hitlist

Find more in SwePub

By the author/editor
Nüssler, Emil
Granåsen, Gabrie ...
Nüssler, Emil Ka ...
Bixo, Marie
Löfgren, Mats, 1 ...
About the subject
MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES
MEDICAL AND HEAL ...
and Clinical Medicin ...
and Surgery
Articles in the publication
International Ur ...
By the university
Umeå University

Search outside SwePub

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view