E.R. MEKHTIEVA, I.I. MUSIN, A.G. YASCHUK, A.A. TYURINA, A.G. IMELBAEVA

 Bashkir State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia, Ufa

 Contact details:

Mekhtieva E.R. — Assistant Lecturer of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Address: 3 Lenin St., Ufa, Russian Federation, 450008, tel.: +7-919-606-98-85, e-mail: elvirochka-azn@mail.ru

 An urgent problem at present is an increasing number of women of reproductive age with pelvic floor muscle failure.

The purpose — to evaluate the results of organ-preserving surgical correction of genital prolapse in women of reproductive age.

Material and methods. This article describes the results of observations in 17 patients of reproductive age with genital prolapse. All patients were assessed for gynecological, somatic status, as well as the severity of connective tissue dysplasia, sexual activity, and anamnesis. The women were divided into two groups: the first group underwent laparoscopic uteropromontopexy with suturing of sacro-uterine ligaments to promontory; the group underwent a two-level laparoscopic uteropromontopexy with suturing of sacro-uterine and cardinal ligaments to promontory. We evaluated both the immediate and long-term results of the correction.

Results. The study confirmed that the two-level promontofixation should be considered the main method of surgical treatment of genital prolapse in women of reproductive age.

Conclusion. Careful diagnosis in the preoperative period and the presence of connective tissue dysplasia allows one to predict the likelihood of a genital prolapse recurrence and choose a specific method of surgical correction.

Key words: prolapse of the genitals, women of reproductive age, connective tissue dysplasia, uteropromontopexy.

(For citation: Mekhtieva E.R., Musin I.I., Yaschuk A.G., Tyurina A.A., Imelbaeva A.G. Comparative evaluation of laparoscopic surgical treatment methods of genital prolapse in women of reproductive age. Practical medicine. 2023. Vol. , № , P.)

REFERENCES

1. Luk’yanova K.D., Mikhel’son A.A., Melkozerova O.A., Lazukina M.V. Pelvic floor dysfunction is an old problem that requires modern solutions. Lechenie i profilaktika, 2020, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 66–72 (in Russ.).
2. Ishchenko A.A., Ishchenko A.I., Aleksandrov L.S., Gilyadova A.V. Possibilities of surgical interventions aimed at correcting pelvic organ prolapse in the gynecological department of a city maternity hospital. Arkhiv akusherstva i ginekologii im. V.F. Snegireva, 2018, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 83–87 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.18821/2313-8726-2018-5-2-83-87
3. Yashchuk A.G., Musin I.I., Popova E.M. et al. Surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women using collagen material. Eksperimental’naya i klinicheskaya urologiya, 2015, no. 4, pp. 124–126 (in Russ.).
4. MacCraith E., Cunnane E.M., Joyce M. et al. Comparison of synthetic mesh erosion and chronic pain rates after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J, 2021, vol. 32 (2), rr. 573–580. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04612-x
5. Bezhenar’ V.F., Palastin P.M., Tolibova G.Kh. Vaginal erosions in the long term after the placement of synthetic implants during gynecological operations. RMZh. Meditsinskoe obozrenie, 2018, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 17–21 (in Russ.).
6. Buyanova S.N., Shchukina N.A., Petrosyan E.I., Dub N.V. Tactics for managing patients with cicatricial deformation and elongation of the cervix in combination with incompetence of the pelvic floor muscles. Rossiyskiy vestnik akushera-ginekologa, 2020, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 52–57. DOI: 10.17116/rosakush20202004152
7. Dällenbach P., De Oliveira S.S., Marras S., Boulvain M. Incidence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic repair of pelvic organ prolapse by lateral suspension with mesh. Int Urogynecol J, 2016, vol. 27 (9), rr. 1347–1355. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-2974-z
8. Li C.B., Hua K.Q. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) in gynecologic surgeries: A systematic review. Asian J Surg, 2020, no. 43, p. 1.
9. Tyurin A.V., Davletshin R.A., Muratova R.M. The role of connective tissue dysplasia phenotypes in assessing the risk of developing somatic pathology. Kazanskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal, 2014, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 501–505 (in Russ.).
10. Musin I.I., Imel’baeva A.G., Mekhtieva E.R. Surgical treatment and prevention of genital prolapse in different age groups. Kreativnaya khirurgiya i onkologiya, 2017, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 38–42 (in Russ.).
11. Kim T.Y., Jeon M.J. Risk factors for vaginal mesh erosion after sacrocolpopexy in Korean women. PLoS One, 2020, vol. 15 (2), p. e0228566. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228566
12. Ghanbari Z., Ghaemi M., Shafiee A. et al. Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med, 2022, vol. 11 (23), p. 7166. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11237166.
13. Seykina V.A., Zharkin N.A., Burova N.A., Prokhvatilov S.A. Accelerated recovery program for surgical treatment of women with severe forms of female genital organ prolapse. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya, 2022, no. 3, pp. 122–128 (in Russ.).
14. Musin I.I., Yashchuk A.G., Zaynullina R.M., Naftulovich R.A. et al. The principle of choosing surgical correction of genital prolapse in different age groups. Prakticheskaya meditsina, 2017, vol. 7, no. 108, pp. 111–114 (in Russ.).