Comprehensive Evaluation Of Pelvic Floor Prolapse And Laparoscopic Sacralcolpopexy In The Treatment Of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Objective:To investigate the surgical outcomes and safety of pelvic floor reconstruction and laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse,and to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two operations to provide a theoretical basis for clinical practice.Methods:We retrospectively analyzed information from 103 patients having underwent surgical treatment of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse from September 2013 to September 2016 at the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University.Of them,62 patients underwent pelvic floor reconstruction and 41 patients underwent laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy,compared the two groups of patients with clinical data,complications and follow-up data,to explore the two surgical safety and clinical efficacy.All data were analyzed by SPSS 19 software.Results:1.The basic data analysis: the average age of patients with pelvic floor reconstruction group was 62.85±8.74 years,higher than the laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy group(56.37±11.62 years old,P<0.05),while the two groups of patients in the maternal,physical fitness and whether the merger disease and stress urinary incontinence were not statistically significant differences.2.The relevant parameters of surgery comparison:The average operative time was 92.37±32.63 min in the pelvic floor reconstruction group,which was significantly lower than that in the laparosc-opic sacralcolpopexy group(157.64±41.28min),and the blood loss in the group was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy group(35.63±15.45 vs 75.57±30.77ml),the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05).There was no significant difference in catheter retention time,hospital days and hospitalization cost between the two groups.3.Perioperative complications:There were 3 cases of surgical-related complications in the pelvic floor reconstruction group.The incidence was 4.8%(3/62).Compared with the laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy(4.87%,2/41),there was no statistically significantdifference between the two groups significance.There was no significant pelvic rgan,large vessel and nerve injury in both groups.4.Mesh-related complications:However,there were2 cases of chronic pelvic pain(3.27%)after operation,while 2 cases of sacralcolpopexy showed mesh exposure(5%,240),no chronic pelvic pain occurred,the difference was statistically significant(P <0.05).5.Follow-up data analysis:Of the 103 patients,101 patients completed postoperative follow-up(98%).The postoperative POP-Q scores of the two groups were significantly improved compared with preoperative,the objective cure rate was 100%,and no recurrence during follow-up period.PFDI-20 score and PFDI-7score were significantly improved in the two groups before and after 6 months(P <0.05),but there was no significant difference between the two groups.There was significant difference in sex life score(PISQ-12)between the two groups,and the score of laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy(79.8 ± 4.6)was significantly higher than that of the pelvic floor reconstruction group(61.6 ± 10.2).There was no significant difference in urinary incontinence between the two groups.Conclusion:Pelvic floor reconstruction and laparoscopic sacralcolpopexy with clear efficacy and lower complications are the safe and effective surgical for pelvic organ prolapse parents.Two surgical methods have their own advantages and disadvantages.In clinical work,we should be based on the patient's wishes,age,degree of organ prolapse,the degree of sexual desire and the patient's economic conditions and other factors to consider,in order to achieve individualized surgical.