A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Laparoscopic excision and re-attachment of sacrocolpopexy mesh. | LitMetric

Laparoscopic excision and re-attachment of sacrocolpopexy mesh.

Int Urogynecol J

Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.

Published: December 2021

Introduction And Hypothesis: Two cases are described and surgical techniques for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy are demonstrated at an academic affiliated hospital in patients with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.

Methods: A laparoscopic approach was taken for surgical intervention, with excision of prior detached vaginal mesh and re-attachment of new sacrocolpopexy mesh.

Results: Two patients presented with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed surgical treatment. The first case is a 68-year-old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy, sacrocolpopexy, and mid-urethral sling performed at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 3 prolapse. Mesh was loosely attached to the cervix. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 1 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. The second case is a 62-year old vaginal multipara with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse status post-total laparoscopic hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy at an outside institution. Preoperative physical examination revealed stage 2 prolapse. The mesh was loosely attached to the vagina. After surgical correction, postoperative physical examination revealed stage 0 prolapse at the 6-week postoperative visit. Both patients reported improvement in symptoms and overall quality of life.

Conclusions: Surgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed initial sacrocolpopexy procedure can be safely accomplished laparoscopically through identification of points of mesh detachment, anatomical landmarks, removal of the prior vaginal portion of the mesh, and attachment of a new surgical mesh to either the sacrum or the sacral portion of the mesh.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04818-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

recurrent pelvic
24
pelvic organ
24
organ prolapse
24
physical examination
16
examination revealed
16
revealed stage
16
stage prolapse
16
prolapse
10
re-attachment sacrocolpopexy
8
mesh
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!