Effective Analysis Of The Modified Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery For Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunction

Objective: To evaluate the effect of pelvic floor reconstruction Prolift before andProlift pelvic floor reconstruction of the treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse toevaluate the efficacy and safety.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed from February2010to November2011, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University,109cases of patients with pelvic organ prolapse, pelvic floor reconstruction surgery in38cases before the implementation of Prolift (before restructuring) and71cases the purposesProlift pelvic floor reconstruction surgery (restructuring) in the treatment of comparison.Indexing method developed by the International Continence Society pelvic organ prolapsequantification (POP-Q) results of operations, investigation of patients surgery,postoperative prolapse quality of life scale (PFIQ-7), as the subjective evaluation of theefficacy of indicators. Results: before the reorganization in March, June and December,the average operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay,indwelling catheter time was (101.67±7.63) min (50.00±0.00) ml (9.33±10.11) days(3.00±0.00) days;(106.67±11.18) min and (51.11±20.27) ml (9.89±5.68) days (4.11±2.08) days;(105.19±6.08) min (48.08±13.27) ml (8.81±4.48) days (4.35±4.10)days. Full reorganization in March, the average operative time for the June and December,blood loss, postoperative hospital days, indwelling catheter, respectively (105.42±8.64)min (52.50±8.66) ml (5.33±0.98) days,(3.00±0.00) days;(106.90±9.28) min (50.00±9.48) ml (7.14±3.05) days (4.38±4.12) days;(107.11±9.56) min (54.74±15.89) ml.(8.84±4.08) days, the time difference (3.42±1.58) days before the restructuring andreorganization in March, June, December average operative time, intraoperative blood loss,postoperative hospital stay, indwelling catheter There was no significant (P＞0.05). Beforerestructuring and restructuring postoperative3months,6months,12months, cure rateswere100%,88.88%,92.30%;100%,95.23%,97.36%, the restructuring objective cure rate higher than before the reorganization. but the difference was not statisticallysignificant (P＞0.05); based on the patients quality of life questionnaire (PFIQ-7), beforerestructuring, full restructuring postoperative score were significantly lower than thepreoperative score, the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05), indicating that thepelvic floor reconstruction surgery in patients with the quality of life significantlyimproved, the whole reorganization in June, December score lower than before therestructuring, but the comparison between the two was no significant difference (P＞0.05).Conclusion: Prolift basin reconstruction better to remedy defects and restore the pelvicfloor structure, short-term efficacy is feasible and safe, and pelvic floor reconstruction inProlift postoperative pelvic floor reconstruction compared Prolift before the effect issatisfactory, pending further accumulation of data clinical evidence-based, long-termeffect needs further observation.