SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.70 número3SEXUALIDAD EN MUJERES HISTERECTOMIZADAS AL TERCER MES POSTERIOR A LA CIRUGÍAHIDATIDOSIS OVÁRICA índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

Compartir


Revista chilena de obstetricia y ginecología

versión impresa ISSN 0048-766Xversión On-line ISSN 0717-7526

Resumen

RONDINI F-D., Carlos et al. PROMONTOFIJACIÓN VERSUS IVS POSTERIOR EN EL TRATAMIENTO DE LOS PROLAPSOS APICALES. Rev. chil. obstet. ginecol. [online]. 2005, vol.70, n.3, pp.166-169. ISSN 0048-766X.  http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-75262005000300007.

Objective: Compare intra and immediate postoperative aspects between two surgical techniques for apical prolapse treatment. Study design: A retrospective study was performed. Between March 2000 and August 2004, 50 patients with vault or uterine prolapse were treated surgically by colposacropexia (SPF) or posterior intravaginal sling plasty (PIVS). If hysterocele was present, a hysterectomy was performed prior to the procedure. Surgical time, intra and immediate post operative complications and hospital stay were the main end points evaluated. Results: The epidemiologic profile was similar in both groups. The only exception was forceps delivery, which was significantly more frequent in PIVS group (0 vs 0.1 ± 0.4; p=0.04). Surgical time with or without hysterectomy was significantly higher in SPF group (86.6 ± 22 min vs 60.5 ± 29 min; p=0.01). Mean hospital stay was significantly lower in IVSP groups (2.0 ± 0.6 vs 3.2 ± 0.6 days; p<0.01). PIVS showed not significant lower tendency to intra (4.2% vs 7.7%; p=0.6) and post operative (8% vs 26%; p=0.08) complications. Conclusion: PIVS offers clear advantages over SPF in apical prolapse treatment when surgical time and hospital stay are compared, with similar intra and post operative complications

Palabras clave : Apical prolapse; posterior IVS; colposacropexia.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )

 

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons