Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Conditions
Brief summary
Collect and review the patients who underwent surgical treatment due to pelvic floor organ prolapse from 2020 to 2021, make statistics on their postoperative questionnaire data, and evaluate the clinical effects of different surgical methods
Interventions
PROCEDURETwo different surgical methods
SSLF：sacrospinal ligament fixation EHUS：Extraperitoneal high sacral ligament suspension
Sponsors
Peking University People's Hospital
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
30 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Age ≥ 30 years; * Because pelvic organ prolapse in our hospital, we performed extraperitoneal high sacral ligament suspension or sacrospinal ligament fixation; ③ Those who have no surgical contraindication and can tolerate surgery and anesthesia.
Exclusion criteria
* Those who cannot tolerate surgery and anesthesia; ② Patients receiving other tip suspension techniques.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| changes in POP-Q score at different time nodes | pre-operation and post-operation(1month, 3 months and 6 months ) | Gynecological examination |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| UDI-6 scores at different time nodes | pre-operation and post-operation(1month, 3 months and 6 months ) | Questionnaires on lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life |
| PFDI-20 scores at different time nodes | pre-operation and post-operation(1month, 3 months and 6 months ) | Questionnaires on lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life |
| OABss scores at different time nodes | pre-operation and post-operation(1month, 3 months and 6 months ) | Questionnaires on lower urinary tract symptoms |
Countries
China
Outcome results
None listed