Articles Vol. 63 No. chuyên đề 3-HN Sản Nhi Nghệ An (2022) 30/11/2022

EVALUATING THE EARLY OUTCOMES OF USING POLYMERIC MESHES IN SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF PELVIC FLOOR PROLAPSE AT THE OBSTESTRICS DEPARTMENT OF NGHE AN GENERAL FRIENDSHIP HOSPITAL

Dinh Van Sinh1,2, Cao Xuan Hung1,2, Le Quang Nam1,2
1 Nghe An General Friendship Hospital
2 Bệnh viện Hữu nghị Đa khoa Nghệ An
Corresponding author: bs.caohungspk@gmail.com
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v63i8.523
15 Views
0 Downloads
Keywords
Pelvic organ prolapse, laparoscopic, sacrocolpopexy.
Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of polypropylene mesh in the surgical
reconstruction of pelvic floor in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) at Nghe An Friendship
General Hospital.
Subjects and Methods: Case reports of female patients with pelvic organ prolapse treated at
Nghe An General Friendship Hospital who assigned for surgery to reconstruct the pelvic floor with
polymeric mesh.
Results: Between June 2020 to June 2021, among 48 selected patients underwent surgery, the
average age was 61.3 years, the proportion of patients who were in pregnant equal to or greater
than 3 times was 83.3%; The proportion of bladder prolapse, uterine prolapse and rectus prolapse
were 89.5%, 83.3% and 31.2%, respectively. Laparoscopic surgery accounted for 72.8% of total
cases and sacrocolpopexy accounted for 28.2%. The average time of sacrocolpopexy was 130 ± 39
minutes with the blood loss of 160±37 ml. The average time of mesh placement for reconstruction
of the anterior wall of the vagina was 61±6 minutes, the average blood loss was 56 ± 13 ml. Sacral
pain occurred in 3 out of 48 patients. Overactive bladder was seen in 3 out of 48 patients.
Conclusions: The placement of polymeric mesh to repair the pelvic organ prolapse can be
perfomed transvaginal or laparoscopy surgery. In our study, there was no recurrence during
follow-up. The rate of early and long term complications was low. The quality of life of patients
was improved after surgery.

References
[1]
Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S Google Scholar
[2]
et al., “Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Google Scholar
[3]
the United States”, Obstet Gynecol, 98:646– Google Scholar
[4]
, 2001. Google Scholar
[5]
Kim CM, Chung DJ, Kim SK et al., “Risk Google Scholar
[6]
factors for pelvic organ prolapse”, International Google Scholar
[7]
Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 98(3), Google Scholar
[8]
–251, 2007. Google Scholar
[9]
Hoffman BB, Schorge J, “Pelvic Organ Google Scholar
[10]
Prolapse” Williams Gynecology 3rd Edition Google Scholar
[11]
(2016)pp 538 – 560. Google Scholar
[12]
Nguyễn Bá Mỹ Nhi và cộng sự, “ Nhận Google Scholar
[13]
xét bước đầu sử dụng mảnh ghép tổng hợp Google Scholar
[14]
trong điều trị ngoại khoa bệnh lý sa tạng chậu Google Scholar
[15]
nữ tại Bệnh viện Từ Dũ” Tạp chí phụ sản, tập Google Scholar
[16]
, số 2, Tháng 4 -2012. Google Scholar
[17]
Jin-Sung Y, Jung HL, Jun-Young H, The Google Scholar
[18]
prevalence and treatment pattern of clinically Google Scholar
[19]
diagnosed pelvic organ prolapse: a Korean Google Scholar
[20]
National Health Insurance Database-based Google Scholar
[21]
cross- sectional study 2009–2015, 2018. Google Scholar
[22]
Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C et al., Google Scholar
[23]
Robotic compared with laparoscopic Google Scholar
[24]
sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled. Google Scholar
[25]
Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:165]. Obstet Google Scholar
[26]
Gynecol, 123:5–12, 2014. Google Scholar
[27]
Karram M, Maher C, Surgery for Google Scholar
[28]
posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol Google Scholar
[29]
; 24:1835–41. Google Scholar