These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.
    Author: Hsiao KC, Latchamsetty K, Govier FE, Kozlowski P, Kobashi KC.
    Journal: J Endourol; 2007 Aug; 21(8):926-30. PubMed ID: 17867956.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSCP) offers a minimally invasive treatment for vaginal vault prolapse. We describe the surgical technique and offer insight into the learning curve. In addition, we performed a case series review comparing the laparoscopic procedure with its open surgical counterpart with respect to various demographic and perioperative parameters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Institutional Review Board-approved continence database at our institution was queried to identify all patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy between August 1999 and October 2004. The LSCP was performed in 25 patients, and open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASCP) was performed in 22 patients. Data were analyzed using Student's t-test and the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the demographic characteristics of the patients undergoing the two approaches. The mean estimated blood loss (P = 0.0002) and mean length of hospitalization (P < 0.0001) were significantly less for LSCP, whereas the operative time was significantly longer (219.9 minutes v 185.2 minutes; P = 0.045). The success rate for LSCP at 5.9 months was 100%; the ASCP success rate at 11.0 months was 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy led to shorter hospitalization, better hemostasis, and less pain than the open procedure. Early follow-up suggests that LSCP is as effective as ASCP for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]