Save
Anatomical Comparison in Patients with Prolapsus Pelvic Organs Post Total Vaginal Hysterectomy With or Without Fixation Sacrospinous ligament
IUGA Academy. Fauzi A. Jun 30, 2018; 212835
Topic: Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Dr. Amir Fauzi
Dr. Amir Fauzi

Access to Premium content is currently a membership benefit.


Click here to join IUGA or renew your membership.

Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)

483

Anatomical comparison in patients with prolapsus pelvic organs post total vaginal hysterectomy with or without fixation sacrospinous ligament

Fauzi, A1; Krisna, R1; Kesuma Putra, H1

1: HUGI Indonesia

Introduction: It is estimated that half of the women who have given birth will experience various forms of POP in her life in the future. Although not a life-threatening condition, POP can play a role against the occurrence of bladder dysfunction resulting in discomfort and psychological pressure. POP management is feasible through conservative and surgical. Act of hysterectomy alone can cause nerve damage and disrupt the pelvic floor support structure. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) according to IUGA / ICS 2010 is the decrease of one or more of the anterior vaginal walls, the posterior vaginal wall, the uterus (cervix), or the vaginal peak (post- hysterectomy vaginal stump). Approximately half of women who have given birth experienced various forms of POP on her life in the future.1,2 On this last decades, many shown that lacamentum Sacrospinosus fixation was effective surgery procedure. Especially for POP improvement. On post vaginal stump prolapse hysterectomy. Sacrospinosus ligament fixation is efficient in anatomical perspective, safe and almost patients were very satisfied with procedures. One advantage of Sacrospinosus fixation is possibility repair other vaginal defects surgery simultaneously.3

Objective: This study aims to compare results outcomes between fixation sacrospinal and fixation non sacrospinal on Anatomical in prolapsed pelvic organs patients.

Methods: Randomized clinical trial was conducted from March to October 2016. There were 80 samples pelvic organ prolapse patients who meet inclusion and exclusion criteria. Population study of this study are 80 pelvic organ patients performed total vaginal hysterectomy surgery. It divided into two groups of 40 respondents who performed the fixation of sacrospinosus and 40 respondents who did not performed sacrospinosus fixation. Frequency and the distribution of data is described in tabular form. Data was analyzed by Chi Square test used SPSS version 18.0.

Results: The median of vaginal prolapse outcomes (Point C) of the SSF group was -5 (-7 sd -1) with mean -4.667 ± 1.422 whereas the non-SSF group median was -4 (-6 sd 0) with mean -3.533 ± 1.925. Mann Whitney test obtained (p= 0.031) which means there is significant difference of vaginal prolapse (Point C) between the two groups. Where the vaginal prolapse output (Point C) higher than Non SSF group.

Table 1. Vaginal Prolapse Outcome Comparison

Characteristics

Group

P

value

SSF

Non SSF

Vaginal Prolapse, Median (Min-Max)

-5 (-7 sd -1)

-4 (-6 to 0)

0.031

Conclusions: There are differences in vaginal prolapse outcomes between SSF and non SSF measures. However, no difference in anatomical cystocele and rectocele in two groups.

Disclosure:

Work supported by industry: no.

Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions
Anonymous User Privacy Preferences

Strictly Necessary Cookies (Always Active)

MULTILEARNING platforms and tools hereinafter referred as “MLG SOFTWARE” are provided to you as pure educational platforms/services requiring cookies to operate. In the case of the MLG SOFTWARE, cookies are essential for the Platform to function properly for the provision of education. If these cookies are disabled, a large subset of the functionality provided by the Platform will either be unavailable or cease to work as expected. The MLG SOFTWARE do not capture non-essential activities such as menu items and listings you click on or pages viewed.


Performance Cookies

Performance cookies are used to analyse how visitors use a website in order to provide a better user experience.



Google Analytics is used for user behavior tracking/reporting. Google Analytics works in parallel and independently from MLG’s features. Google Analytics relies on cookies and these cookies can be used by Google to track users across different platforms/services.


Save Settings