The Clinical Experience of Genital Pelvic OrganProlapse with the Prolift(TM) System.
10.4111/kju.2008.49.8.739
- Author:
Ji Yeon HAN
1
;
Kyu Sung LEE
;
Myung Soo CHOO
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. mschoo@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Prolapse;
Surgical mesh;
Surgical procedure
- MeSH:
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Pelvic Floor;
Pelvic Organ Prolapse;
Physical Examination;
Prolapse;
Surgical Mesh;
Treatment Failure;
Urodynamics
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2008;49(8):739-744
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: In the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse(POP), treatment failure and re-operation rates are relatively high when conventional mesh-free surgical methods are employed. Recently, a transvaginal prolapse repair method using surgical mesh has come into broad usage. The principal objective of this study was to report on the clinical efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh repair of genital prolapses using the Prolift(TM) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included 31(mean age 61.1 years) patients who had undergone pelvic organ prolapsed treatment with the Prolift(TM) system. The evaluation included a medical history, physical examination including Pelvic Organ Prolapse staging system(POP-Q), a urodynamic study, and a Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory(PFDI). An anatomic cure after intervention was defined as stage 0 and an improvement was defined as stage I. Anatomic failures were defined as stage II or higher. The patients were monitored at 4, 12 and 52 weeks postoperatively, and the mean follow-up period was 13.7 months. RESULTS: Preoperative anterior vaginal wall prolapse to the POP-Q was stage II in 13, III in 14, IV in 4, uterine or vaginal vault prolapse stage II in 3, III in 6, IV in 1 and posterior vaginal wall prolapse stage II in 3, and stage III in 7. Anterior, posterior and total repair were performed in 21(67.8%), 1(3.2%), and 9(29.0%) patients, respectively. 90.3%(28/31) of the patients had been anatomically cured upon follow-up examination, and 93.5%(29/31) reported being satisfied with the result of the operation. Pre-and postoperative urinary symptoms, as well as prolapse symptoms as evaluated by PFDI, were improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor surgery using the Prolift(TM) system appears to be both effective and safe.
