4.4 Article

Comparative mid-term anatomical and functional outcomes following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women under and over 65: results from a prospective study

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 297, Issue 6, Pages 1465-1472

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-018-4738-0

Keywords

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy; Elderly; Anatomical outcome; Function outcome; Mid-term

Funding

  1. Cousin Biotech, France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To compare mid-term anatomical and functional outcomes following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LS) between women under and over 65. Methods Prospective and observational study involving patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) undergoing LS. Study population was stratified according to patients' age at the time of surgery. POP symptoms and impact on quality of life were assessed by PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 questionnaires at baseline and during follow-up. Results Among our study population (n = 72), 26 women were over 65 and 46 under 65. Mean follow-up duration was 17.6 months, and complete follow-up was available in 90% of patients. No differences between study groups were observed regarding surgery duration, length of stay, and peri-operative complications. Recurrence rate was 1.4% at 18 months of followup. Questionnaires analysis revealed a significant improvement in PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 scores. We found no differences in post-operative scores between control and elderly groups. Sixteen patients experienced de novo stress urinary incontinence (22.2%), with no difference between groups (p = 0.7). Among them, seven required surgical management. Conclusions LS was associated with high anatomical success rate and good functional outcomes, regardless of age at the time of surgery. LS should thus be considered in women over 65. Beyond age, the route of surgery should be driven by patient's choice and medical condition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available