The assessment of quality of life and satisfaction with life of patients before and after surgery of an isolated apical defect using synthetic materials.
Isolated apical defect
Quality of life
Surgical treatment
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jul 2020
20 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
14
01
2020
accepted:
06
07
2020
entrez:
22
7
2020
pubmed:
22
7
2020
medline:
23
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pelvic floor static disorders constitute a significant clinical and social problem. The incidence of the problem increases with the age of female patients up to 80 years of age. Due to various methods of procedural treatment, eligibility for surgery should be carefully discussed with the patient. Ideally, the surgery should be effective and with the least possible number of complications. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of life of patients before and after the surgery of an isolated apical defect with the use of BSC mesh. The study involved 60 patients who were diagnosed with pelvic floor static disorder on the basis of physical examination. Standardised questionnaires were used to assess the quality of life and satisfaction with life: the Perceived Quality of Life (P-QOL) and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). The P-QOL results for each domain were higher in patients before surgery compared to the results obtained after the surgery. For almost all domains, the results obtained were statistically significant. The results obtained in the SWLS questionnaire in most answers also show that after the procedure there was an improvement in satisfaction with life in the examined female patients. In most patients, surgical treatment of an isolated apical defect using BSC mesh results in the subsidence of bothersome symptoms and improves the quality of life.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pelvic floor static disorders constitute a significant clinical and social problem. The incidence of the problem increases with the age of female patients up to 80 years of age. Due to various methods of procedural treatment, eligibility for surgery should be carefully discussed with the patient. Ideally, the surgery should be effective and with the least possible number of complications. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of life of patients before and after the surgery of an isolated apical defect with the use of BSC mesh.
METHODS
METHODS
The study involved 60 patients who were diagnosed with pelvic floor static disorder on the basis of physical examination. Standardised questionnaires were used to assess the quality of life and satisfaction with life: the Perceived Quality of Life (P-QOL) and the Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
The P-QOL results for each domain were higher in patients before surgery compared to the results obtained after the surgery. For almost all domains, the results obtained were statistically significant. The results obtained in the SWLS questionnaire in most answers also show that after the procedure there was an improvement in satisfaction with life in the examined female patients.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In most patients, surgical treatment of an isolated apical defect using BSC mesh results in the subsidence of bothersome symptoms and improves the quality of life.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32689981
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-00666-7
pii: 10.1186/s12894-020-00666-7
pmc: PMC7370467
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biocompatible Materials
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104Références
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Feb;117(2 Pt 1):242-50
pubmed: 21252735
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Jan;208:86-90
pubmed: 27894034
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012 May-Jun;18(3):158-61
pubmed: 22543767
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 Oct;19(10):1415-22
pubmed: 18536861
Curr Opin Urol. 2013 Jul;23(4):293-8
pubmed: 23619578
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2017 Sep;77(9):993-1001
pubmed: 28959063
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;222(4):358.e1-358.e11
pubmed: 31589864
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;185(6):1332-7; discussion 1337-8
pubmed: 11744905
Psychiatr Pol. 2019 Aug 31;53(4):901-914
pubmed: 31760416
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013 Feb;287(2):307-12
pubmed: 23001368
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017 May/Jun;23(3):e14-e18
pubmed: 28134702
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019 Oct 17;:
pubmed: 31697265
Urologe A. 2020 Jan;59(1):65-71
pubmed: 31741004
BMC Womens Health. 2019 Oct 29;19(1):129
pubmed: 31664987
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Mar;210:29-34
pubmed: 27930942
J Endourol. 2015 Feb;29(2):210-5
pubmed: 25350228
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Aug;7(4):317-21
pubmed: 7578974
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Apr;190(4):1025-9
pubmed: 15118635
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Dec;25(4):897-912
pubmed: 7160122
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1951 Feb 2;63(5):74-77
pubmed: 14836594
Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 19;9(1):17047
pubmed: 31745119
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;128(1):81-91
pubmed: 27275813
Ginekol Pol. 2016;87(7):477-83
pubmed: 27504938
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2016 Mar;43(1):1-13
pubmed: 26880504
Int Urogynecol J. 2017 Apr;28(4):583-590
pubmed: 27678145
Maturitas. 2011 Feb;68(2):137-42
pubmed: 21195563
Int J Surg. 2016 Sep;33 Pt A:36-41
pubmed: 27465100