【摘要】 目的比较两种不同的全盆底重建手术方案:Gynemesh全盆底重建及Prolift^TM系统的围手术期情况及短期疗效,以确定一种经济有效、适合中国人的全盆底重建术式。方法回顾性分析2006—2009年我院119例盆腔器官脱垂患者,其中79例行Gynemesh全盆底重建术,40例行Prolift^TM全盆腔悬吊术,所有患者均以至少一个区域存在Ⅱ度以上脱垂为手术指征,评估两组手术患者的围手术期情况及短期疗效和并发症情况。结果两组患者在手术时间、住院天数,盆底解剖恢复情况、网片侵蚀及手术相关的出血及下尿路症状发生率方面,差异无统计学意义。结论 Prolift^TM系统是目前通用的用于盆底重建手术的标准化系统,采用Gynemesh网片裁剪后进行的微创全盆底重建,在短期随访中具有可重复性高、安全有效、费用低廉等优势,是一种值得进一步推广的全盆底重建术式。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To compare the short-term efficacy of two surgical procedures(Gynemesh total pelvic floor reconstruction and procedure with Prolift^? system) for transvaginal pelvic floor reconstruction in Chinese.Methods One hundred and nineteen women with pelvic organ prolapse （POP≥Ⅱat least one site） underwent pelvic floor reconstruction;79 patients received Gynemesh total pelvic floor reconstruction（group A） and 40 patients received procedure with Prolift^?system（group B）.The perioperative conditions,short-term anatomical outcomes and complications of two surgical modalities were compared.Results There was no difference regarding operative duration,anatomical success,mesh erosion,surgery-related ecchymosis,de novo urinary incontinence,urinary urgency and dysuresia between two groups（P > 0.05）.Conclusion Compared to standard Prolift^? procedure, the self-developed Genemesh surgery is reproducible,minimal invasive,safe,low-cost,and effective in anatomical restoration in short-term follow-up for pelvic floor reconstruction.更多还原