Chapter 4.1 62 Table 4: Postoperative anatomical success of apical prolapse repair by CESA or VASA in studies where presence Participants Follow-up Results Jäger2016 76 4 months POP-Q stage Before surgery After surgery Risk difference 0 0 (0) 76 (100) 100% 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 0% 2 60 (79) 0 (0) 78.9% 3 13 (17) 0 (0) 17.2% 4 3 (4) 0 (0) 3.9% Elmantwe 2016 10 6 months POP-Q Before surgery After surgery Mean differences Aa 1.6 (1.1) -1.5 (1.2) 3.1 Ba 2.6 (1.9) -2.1 (1.5) 4.7 C 2.2 (3.4) -7.1 (1.2) 9.3 D 2.4 (3.3) -8.8 (1.2) 11.2 Ap -0.5 (1.8) -2.6 (1.3) 2.1 Bp -0.9 (1.7) -2.8 (1.4) 1.9 Rexhepi 2018 120 4 monthsa POP-Q stage Before surgery After surgery Risk difference 0 0 (0) 116 (97) 97% 1 63 (53) 4 (3) 50% 2 to 4 57 (47) 0 (0) 47% Data are presented as number (%) or mean (SD). Means were compared using a two-sided t-test and proportions were co women had a relapse of apical prolapse within 2 months of surgery because of failing cervical fixation. for which absorbab second laparoscopy with refixation at the cervix using nonabsorbable sutures which restored anatomy.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw