切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版) ›› 2015, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (02) : 179 -184. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2015.02.007

所属专题: 文献

论著

腹腔镜下子宫/阴道-骶骨固定术与阴道网片全盆底重建术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的疗效比较
魏冬梅1, 王平1, 牛晓宇1,*,*()   
  1. 1. 610041 成都,四川大学华西第二医院妇产科
  • 收稿日期:2015-01-05 修回日期:2015-03-22 出版日期:2015-04-01
  • 通信作者: 牛晓宇

Comparison the role of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy/sacrocolpopexy and total vaginal mesh in severe pelvic organ prolapse

Dongmei Wei1, Ping Wang1, Xiaoyu Niu1()   

  1. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan Province, China
  • Received:2015-01-05 Revised:2015-03-22 Published:2015-04-01
  • Corresponding author: Xiaoyu Niu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Niu Xiaoyu, Email:
引用本文:

魏冬梅, 王平, 牛晓宇. 腹腔镜下子宫/阴道-骶骨固定术与阴道网片全盆底重建术治疗盆腔器官脱垂的疗效比较[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2015, 11(02): 179-184.

Dongmei Wei, Ping Wang, Xiaoyu Niu. Comparison the role of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy/sacrocolpopexy and total vaginal mesh in severe pelvic organ prolapse[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2015, 11(02): 179-184.

目的

探讨腹腔镜下子宫/阴道-骶骨固定术(LSC)与全盆底重建术(TVM)治疗盆腔器官脱垂(POP)的疗效。

方法

采用回顾性分析方法对2011年1月至2013年12月在四川大学华西第二医院接受LSC的157例患者和经阴道植入网片的160例TVM患者的临床资料进行相关研究。按照接受手术治疗方法的不同,将其分别纳入LSC组(n=157)与TVM组(n=160)。根据POP定量评分法(POP-Q)比较患者术后客观满意度;根据主观症状改善评分(PGI-C)比较患者的主观满意度;比较手术时间、出血量、术中及术后并发症发生率;采用盆底生活质量问卷(PFDI-20,PFIQ-7)及性生活质量问卷(PISQ-12)比较两组患者术前、术后生活质量及性生活质量评分。本研究遵循的程序符合本院人体试验委员会所制定的伦理学标准,得到该委员会批准,分组征得受试对象本人的知情同意,并与之签署临床研究知情同意书。

结果

①两组患者病程、体质指数与原发性高血压、糖尿病、支气管炎、排便及排尿困难、尿失禁、合并妇科疾病、宫颈延长发生率,以及既往盆底手术率等比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);但两组患者年龄及术前绝经率比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。②TVM组手术时间较LSC组显著缩短,但TVM组术中出血量却较LSC组显著增加,两组手术时间及术中出血量比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者术后住院时间及留置尿管时间与联合行其他术式,如子宫切除术率、宫颈延长部分切除术率、TVT-O率、会阴重建术率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。③对两组患者随访10~44个月,中位随访时间为26个月,LSC组与TVM组患者的客观满意度[分别为94.9%(149/157)与91.9%(147/160)]比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。LSC组患者的PGI-C评分、主观满意度均优于TVM组,且差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01);两组患者术后PFDI-20、PFIQ-7评分均较术前显著改善,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01);但两组术后PFDI-20、PFIQ-7问卷评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);LSC组患者术后PISQ-12评分优于TVM组,且差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。④两组患者术后6个月时AaBaCBpAp点长度组内比较,均较术前显著改善,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01);两组患者术前及术后6个月组内阴道总长度(TVL)比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。⑤两组术中均无直肠损伤发生,但TVM组患者术中膀胱损伤率显著高于LSC组,并且差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。TVM组术后会阴部疼痛不适率显著高于LSC组,并且差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),术中及术后其他并发症发生率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。

结论

与TVM比较,LSC具有术中出血量少,术后性生活满意度较高和手术满意度较高的优势,但具体术式还应结合患者意愿和具体情况进行选择。

Objective

To compare the efficacy and long term results of laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy/sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and total vaginal mesh (TVM) in severe pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

Retrospectively reviewed the clinical data and follow up results of severe POP patients who had either LSC (n=157) or TVM (n=160) in West China Second University Hospital during January 2011 to December 2013. The results of POP quantification(POP-Q) scores, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory 20 (PFDI-20), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7 (PFIQ-7) and POP/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire 12 (PISQ-12) for quality of life evaluation before and after operation between two groups were compared, as well as the perioperative complications. This study meet the requirement of human experimentation ethics committee and consent form was signed by each patients.

Results

① There were no significance differences between two groups among the course of disease, body mass index and morbidity rates of primary hypertension, diabetes, bronchitis, defecation and urination difficulty, urinary incontinence, gynecological diseases, and cervical extension, and previous pelvic operation rate (P>0.05), respectively. There were significant differences between two groups between age and morbidity rate of menopause preoperative (P<0.05). ② Operation duration in TVM group was much shorter than that in LSC group, intraoperative blood loss volume in TVM group was more than that in LSC group. There were significant differences between two groups between operation duration and intraoperative blood loss volume(P<0.05). There were no significance differences between two groups among postoperative hospitalization time, and rates of the combination of other operations, such as hysterectomy, partial resection of cervical extension, TVT-O, perineal reconstruction (P>0.05), respectively. ③All the patients were followed-up 10-44 months (median followed-up 26 months). The objective satisfaction rates between two groups were comparable (94.90% vs 91.88%, P>0.05). The postoperative PGI-C scores and the subjective satisfaction rate of LSC group were better than those of TVM group (P<0.01). The postoperative PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 scores were significantly improved in both groups, but without obvious differences (P>0.05). The postoperative PISQ-12 scores of LSC group was significantly better than that of TVM group (P<0.01). ④After postoperative six months, the length of Aa, Ba, C, Bp and Ap were all better than those of preoperative in two groups (P<0.01). There were no significant differences within two groups of TVL at preoperative and in six months (P>0.05). ⑤There was no damage of rectal injury duration operation. The damage rate of bladder in TVM group was higher than that in LSC group, and there were significant difference (P<0.01). The rate of perineal pain in TVM group was much higher than that in LSC group, and there was significant difference (P<0.01). There were no significance differences between two groups in the incidence of other complications intraoperative and postoperative (P>0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with TVM, LSC has the advantages in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative sexual life satisfaction rate and operation subjective satisfaction rate. However, the choice of an ideal operation means still relays on the will and the detailed circumstances of a patient.

表1 TVM组与LSC组患者一般资料比较[例数(%)]
Table 1 Comparison of general clinical data between two groups [case (%)]
表2 TVM组与LSC组围术期各项参数比较(±s)
Table 2 Comparison of perioperative parameters between two groups (±s)
表3 两组患者术前与术后6个月时盆腔器官脱垂定量分期结果比较(cm, ±s)
Table 3 Comparison of preoperative and 6 months' postoperative pelvic organ prolapse quantitative stage results between two groups (cm,±s)
表4 两组患者术前与术后2年时生活质量评分(分,±s)
Table 4 Comparison of preoperative and 2 years' postoperative quality of life scores between two groups (score, ±s)
表5 两组术中及术后2年时并发症发生率及复发率比较[例数(%)]
Table 5 Comparison of intraoperative and 2 years' postoperative complications and recurrence rates between two groups [case(%)]
[1]
Stanton SL, Kerr-Wilson R, Harris VG. The incidence of urological symptoms in normal pregnancy[J]. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1980, 87(10): 897–900.
[2]
Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 204(1): e1–e7.
[3]
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminologyof female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1996, 175(1): 10–17.
[4]
Geisser ME, Clauw DJ, Strand V, et al. Contributions of change in clinical status parameters to Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores among persons with fibromyalgia treated with milnacipran[J]. Pain, 2010, 149(2): 373–378.
[5]
於四军,徐涛,朱兰. 女性盆底功能障碍性疾病问卷中文版本研制与中国人群验证[D]. 北京:中国医学科学院 北京协和医院,2010: 1-69.
[6]
Khan A, Alperin M, Wu N,et al. Comparative outcomes of open versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy among Medicare beneficiaries[J]. Int Urogynecol J, 2013, 24(11): 1883–1891.
[7]
Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study[J]. Inte Urogynecol J, 2013, 24(3): 377–384.
[8]
Yesil N, Watermann K, Farthmann J. Mesh implantation for pelvic organ prolapse improves quality of life [J]. Arch Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 289(4): 817–821.
[9]
Woodruff AJ, Roth CC, Winters JC. Abdominal sacral colpopexy:surgical pearls and outcomes[J]. Cur Urol Reports, 2007, 8 (5): 399–404.
[10]
Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 204(4): e1–e7.
[11]
Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, et al. Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2011, 117(2 Pt 1): 242–250.
[12]
Halaska M, Maxova K, Sottner O, et al. A multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing sacrospinous fixation and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2012, 207(4): e1–e7.
[13]
Kaufman Y, Singh SS, Alturki H, et al. Age and sexual activity are risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal mesh repair[J]. Int Urogynecol J, 2011, 22(1): 307–313.
[1] 曹迪, 张玉茹. 经腹腔镜生物补片修补直肠癌根治术后盆底疝1例[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 115-116.
[2] 李凯, 陈淋, 向涵, 苏怀东, 张伟. 一种U型记忆合金线在经脐单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术中的临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 15-15.
[3] 杜晓辉, 崔建新. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术淋巴结清扫范围与策略[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 5-8.
[4] 周岩冰, 刘晓东. 腹腔镜右半结肠癌D3根治术消化道吻合重建方式的选择[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 9-13.
[5] 张焱辉, 张蛟, 朱志贤. 留置肛管在中低位直肠癌新辅助放化疗后腹腔镜TME术中的临床研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 25-28.
[6] 王春荣, 陈姜, 喻晨. 循Glisson蒂鞘外解剖、Laennec膜入路腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术临床应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 37-40.
[7] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[8] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[9] 逄世江, 黄艳艳, 朱冠烈. 改良π形吻合在腹腔镜全胃切除消化道重建中的安全性和有效性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 66-69.
[10] 莫波, 王佩, 王恒, 何志军, 梁俊, 郝志楠. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术与改良胃癌根治术治疗早期胃癌的疗效[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 644-647.
[11] 鲁鑫, 许佳怡, 刘洋, 杨琴, 鞠雯雯, 徐缨龙. 早期LC术与PTCD续贯LC术治疗急性胆囊炎对患者肝功能及预后的影响比较[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 648-650.
[12] 孟飞龙, 华帅, 张莹, 路广海. 经脐单孔腹腔镜后鞘后入路在全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 658-660.
[13] 阿冲罗布, 陈颖, 谢德坤. 腹腔镜外囊完整剥离术治疗肝包虫病效果及对患者肝功能、预后的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 666-669.
[14] 索郎多杰, 高红桥, 巴桑顿珠, 仁桑. 腹腔镜下不同术式治疗肝囊型包虫病的临床疗效分析[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 670-673.
[15] 汤海琴, 郭秀枝, 朱晓素, 赵世娣. “隧道法”腹腔镜解剖性左半肝切除术的临床安全性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 674-677.
阅读次数
全文


摘要