Лапароскопическая коррекция пролапса тазовых органов и стрессового недержания мочи: современный взгляд на проблему

Доброхотова Ю.Э., Таранов В.В., Лапина И.А., Тян А.Г., Чирвон Т.Г., Глебов Н.В., Кайкова О.В., Малахова А.А. Лапароскопическая коррекция пролапса тазовых органов и стрессового недержания мочи: современный взгляд на проблему. Гинекология. 2023;25(1):91–94. DOI: 10.26442/20795696.2023.1.202069

© ООО «КОНСИЛИУМ МЕДИКУМ», 2023 г.

________________________________________________

Dobrokhotova YuE, Taranov VV, Lapina IA, Tyan AG, Chirvon TG, Glebov NV, Kaykova OV, Malakhova AA. Laparoscopic correction of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a current view of the problem. Gynecology. 2023;25(1):91–94. DOI: 10.26442/20795696.2023.1.202069

Читать PDF

Аннотация

Пролапс тазовых органов относится к группе мультидисциплинарных патологических процессов, в патогенезе которых участвуют различные этиологические компоненты, приводящие к дестабилизации связочного и мышечно-фасциального аппарата. В большинстве случаев дисфункция тазового дна требует хирургического лечения, что позволяет не только устранить имеющиеся дефекты и нивелировать клиническую симптоматику, но и улучшить качество жизни пациентов. Выполнение корригирующих оперативных вмешательств по поводу генитального пролапса с помощью лапароскопического доступа ассоциировано с высокой эффективностью и низким риском развития неблагоприятных клинических исходов. Однако, несмотря на значительный прогресс и совершенствование вариантов хирургического лечения, актуальным вопросом остается выбор оптимального метода лечения с точки зрения персонализированного подхода. В данном литературном обзоре проанализированы классические и альтернативные методики лапароскопической коррекции пролапса тазовых органов.

Ключевые слова: пролапс тазовых органов, дисфункция тазового дна, персонализированный подход, лапароскопический доступ

________________________________________________

Pelvic organ prolapse refers to a group of multidisciplinary disorders with various etiological components involved in its pathogenesis, destabilizing the ligamentous and musculofascial apparatus. In most cases, pelvic floor dysfunction requires surgical treatment, eliminating existing defects and clinical symptoms and improving patients' quality of life. Corrective surgery for genital prolapse by laparoscopic approach is highly effective and is associated with a low risk of adverse clinical outcomes. However, despite the significant progress and improvement of surgical treatment options, choosing the optimal treatment method based on a personalized approach remains an urgent issue. This literature review reviews traditional and alternative methods of laparoscopic correction of pelvic organ prolapse.

Keywords: pelvic organ prolapse, pelvic floor dysfunction, personalized approach, laparoscopic access

Полный текст

Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения.
Чтобы посмотреть материал полностью Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь.

Список литературы

1. Mbaye M, Autumn Edenfield L, Woll A, Swift SE. Factors affecting patient choice for continued observation versus intervention for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;32(2):273-8. DOI:10.1007/s00192-020-04466-3
2. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V. Lifetime Risk of Stress Urinary Incontinence or Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201-6.
3. Weintraub AY, Glinter H, Marcus-Braun N. Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;46(1):5-14.
4. Giri A, Hartmann KE, Hellwege JN, et al. Obesity and pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and metaanalysis of observational studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(1):11-26.e3.
5. Bhattacharyya O, Blumenthal D, Stoddard R, et al. Redesigning care: adapting new improvement methods to achieve personcentred care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):242-8.
6. Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson J, Constantin F, et al. Uterus preservation is superior to hysterectomy when performing laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):557-64. DOI:10.1007/s00192-018-3678-3
7. Гвоздев М.Ю., Пушкарь Д.Ю. Петлевые операции в лечении недержания мочи в РФ. Урология. Бионика Медиа. 2017;4:97-101 [Gvozdev MYu, Pushkar' DYu. Petlevyie operatsii v lechenii nederzhaniia mochi v RF. Urologiia. Bionika Media. 2017;4:97-101 (in Russian)].
8. Arthure HG, Savage D. Uterine prolapse and prolapse of the vaginal vault treated by sacral hysteropexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1957;64(3):355-60.
9. Gluck O, Blaganje M, Veit-Rubin N, Phillips C. Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive Literature Review On Current Practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;245:94-101. DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.12.029
10. Moroni RM, Juliato C, Cosson M, Giraudet G. Does sacrocolpopexy present heterogeneity in its surgical technique? A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(8):2335-45.
11. Coolen A, van Oudheusden A. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexycompared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapsed repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469-79.
12. Dubuisson JB, Dubuisson J, Puigventos J. Laparoscopic Anatomy of the Pelvic Floor. Springer, 2020. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-35498-5
13. Cosma S, Menato G, Ceccaroni M, et al. Laparoscopic sacropexy and obstructed defecation syndrome: an anatomoclinical study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(10):1623-30.
14. Giraudet G, Protat A, Cosson M. The anatomy of the sacral promontory: How to avoid complications of the sacrocolpopexy procedure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(4):457.
15. Cosma S, Petruzzelli P. Simplified laparoscopic sacropexy avoiding deep vaginal dissection. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143(2):239-45. DOI:10.1002/ijgo.12632
16. Dubuisson J, Veit-Rubin N. Laparoscopic lateral suspension: benefits of a cross-shaped mesh to treat difficult vaginal vault prolapse. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(5):672.
17. Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1815-30.
18. Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Gayet-Ageron A, et al. Patient satisfaction after laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: outcome report of a continuous series of 417 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1685-93.
19. Orhan A, Ozerkan, K, Kasapoglu I. A meshless practical laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy modification and long-term outcomes, J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(7):1573-80. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.02.011
20. Seracchioli R, Raimondo D, Arena A, Gava G. Laparoscopic Mesh-Less Cervicosacropexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(6):399-403. DOI:10.1097/spv.0000000000000464
21. Ozerkan K, Orhan A, Kasapoglu I, Ata B. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with polyester fiber suture: Ozerkan modification. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(8):1601-7.
DOI:10.1007/s00192-019-04042-4
22. Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Lange S. Uterus-preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a patient-centred outcome report and video of a continuous series of 245 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;27(3):491-3. DOI:10.1007/s00192-015-2859-6
23. Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2069-74. DOI:10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1
24. Kalis V, Rusavy Z, Ismail KM. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(6):1277-80. DOI:10.1007/s00192-019-04150-1
25. Labanca L, Centini G, Lazzeri L, Afors K. Sacrohysteropexy: a way to spare the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(6):1254-5. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2019.12.006
26. Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129-46.e2. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018
27. Лапина И.А., Доброхотова Ю.Э., Таранов В.В., и др. Комплексное ведение пациенток с пролапсом тазовых органов и метаболическим синдромом. Гинекология. 2021;23(3):260-6 [Lapina IA, Dobrokhotova YuE, Taranov VV, et al. Comprehensive management of patients with pelvis organ prolapse and metabolic syndrome. Gynecology. 2021;23(3):260-6 (in Russian)].

________________________________________________

1. Mbaye M, Autumn Edenfield L, Woll A, Swift SE. Factors affecting patient choice for continued observation versus intervention for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;32(2):273-8. DOI:10.1007/s00192-020-04466-3
2. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V. Lifetime Risk of Stress Urinary Incontinence or Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201-6.
3. Weintraub AY, Glinter H, Marcus-Braun N. Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;46(1):5-14.
4. Giri A, Hartmann KE, Hellwege JN, et al. Obesity and pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and metaanalysis of observational studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(1):11-26.e3.
5. Bhattacharyya O, Blumenthal D, Stoddard R, et al. Redesigning care: adapting new improvement methods to achieve personcentred care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):242-8.
6. Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson J, Constantin F, et al. Uterus preservation is superior to hysterectomy when performing laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):557-64. DOI:10.1007/s00192-018-3678-3
7. Gvozdev MYu, Pushkar' DYu. Petlevyie operatsii v lechenii nederzhaniia mochi v RF. Urologiia. Bionika Media. 2017;4:97-101 (in Russian).
8. Arthure HG, Savage D. Uterine prolapse and prolapse of the vaginal vault treated by sacral hysteropexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1957;64(3):355-60.
9. Gluck O, Blaganje M, Veit-Rubin N, Phillips C. Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Comprehensive Literature Review On Current Practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;245:94-101. DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.12.029
10. Moroni RM, Juliato C, Cosson M, Giraudet G. Does sacrocolpopexy present heterogeneity in its surgical technique? A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(8):2335-45.
11. Coolen A, van Oudheusden A. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexycompared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapsed repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469-79.
12. Dubuisson JB, Dubuisson J, Puigventos J. Laparoscopic Anatomy of the Pelvic Floor. Springer, 2020. DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-35498-5
13. Cosma S, Menato G, Ceccaroni M, et al. Laparoscopic sacropexy and obstructed defecation syndrome: an anatomoclinical study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(10):1623-30.
14. Giraudet G, Protat A, Cosson M. The anatomy of the sacral promontory: How to avoid complications of the sacrocolpopexy procedure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(4):457.
15. Cosma S, Petruzzelli P. Simplified laparoscopic sacropexy avoiding deep vaginal dissection. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2018;143(2):239-45. DOI:10.1002/ijgo.12632
16. Dubuisson J, Veit-Rubin N. Laparoscopic lateral suspension: benefits of a cross-shaped mesh to treat difficult vaginal vault prolapse. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(5):672.
17. Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1815-30.
18. Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Gayet-Ageron A, et al. Patient satisfaction after laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: outcome report of a continuous series of 417 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1685-93.
19. Orhan A, Ozerkan, K, Kasapoglu I. A meshless practical laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy modification and long-term outcomes, J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(7):1573-80. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2020.02.011
20. Seracchioli R, Raimondo D, Arena A, Gava G. Laparoscopic Mesh-Less Cervicosacropexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(6):399-403. DOI:10.1097/spv.0000000000000464
21. Ozerkan K, Orhan A, Kasapoglu I, Ata B. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with polyester fiber suture: Ozerkan modification. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(8):1601-7.
DOI:10.1007/s00192-019-04042-4
22. Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Lange S. Uterus-preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a patient-centred outcome report and video of a continuous series of 245 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;27(3):491-3. DOI:10.1007/s00192-015-2859-6
23. Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2069-74. DOI:10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1
24. Kalis V, Rusavy Z, Ismail KM. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(6):1277-80. DOI:10.1007/s00192-019-04150-1
25. Labanca L, Centini G, Lazzeri L, Afors K. Sacrohysteropexy: a way to spare the uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(6):1254-5. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2019.12.006
26. Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129-46.e2. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018
27. Lapina IA, Dobrokhotova YuE, Taranov VV, et al. Comprehensive management of patients with pelvis organ prolapse and metabolic syndrome. Gynecology. 2021;23(3):260-6 (in Russian).

Авторы

Ю.Э. Доброхотова1, В.В. Таранов1, И.А. Лапина*1, А.Г. Тян2, Т.Г. Чирвон1, Н.В. Глебов2, О.В. Кайкова2, А.А. Малахова1

1 ФГАОУ ВО «Российский национальный исследовательский медицинский университет им. Н.И. Пирогова» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия;
2 АО ГК «МЕДСИ», Москва, Россия
*doclapina@mail.ru

________________________________________________

Yulia E. Dobrokhotova1, Vladislav V. Taranov1, Irina A. Lapina*1, Anatoly G. Tyan2, Tatiana G. Chirvon1, Nikita V. Glebov2, Olesya V. Kaykova2, Anastasiya A. Malakhova1

1 Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia;
2 GK "MEDSI", Moscow, Russia
*doclapina@mail.ru

Назад к списку

Цель портала OmniDoctor – предоставление профессиональной информации врачам, провизорам и фармацевтам.