2 research outputs found

    Management of female pelvic organ prolapse—Summary of the 2021 HAS guidelines

    No full text
    International audienceWhen a patient presents with symptoms suggestive of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), clinical evaluation should include an assessment of symptoms, their impact on daily life and rule out other pelvic pathologies. The prolapse should be described compartment by compartment, indicating the extent of the externalization for each. The diagnosis of POP is clinical. Additional exams may be requested to explore the symptoms associated or not explained by the observed prolapse. Pelvic floor muscle training and pessaries are non-surgical conservative treatment options recommended as first-line therapy for pelvic organ prolapse. They can be offered in combination and be associated with the management of modifiable risk factors for prolapse. If the conservative therapeutic options do not meet the patient's expectations, surgery should be proposed if the symptoms are disabling, related to pelvic organ prolapse, detected on clinical examination and significant (stage 2 or more of the POP-Q classification). Surgical routes for POP repair can be abdominal with mesh placement, or vaginal with autologous tissue. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is recommended for cases of apical and anterior prolapse. Autologous vaginal surgery (including colpocleisis) is a recommended option for elderly and fragile patients. For cases of isolated rectocele, the posterior vaginal route with autologous tissue should be preferentially performed over the transanal route. The decision to place a mesh must be made in consultation with a multidisciplinary team. After the surgery, the patient should be reassessed by the surgeon, even in the absence of symptoms or complications, and in the long term by a primary care or specialist doctor

    Randomised clinical trial for the cost–utility evaluation of two strategies of perineal reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection in the context of anorectal carcinoma: biological mesh repair versus primary perineal wound closure, study protocol for the GRECCAR 9 Study

    No full text
    Introduction Abdominoperineal resections performed for anorectal tumours leave a large pelvic and perineal defect causing a high rate of morbidity of the perineal wound (40%–60%). Biological meshes offer possibilities for new standards of perineal wound reconstruction. Perineal fillings with biological mesh are expected to increase quality of life by reducing perineal morbidity.Methods and analysis This is a multicentre, randomised and single-blinded study with a blinded endpoint evaluation, the experimental arm of which uses a biological mesh and the control arm of which is defined by the primary closure after abdominoperineal resection for cancer. Patients eligible for inclusion are patients with a proven history of rectal adenocarcinoma and anal canal epidermoid carcinoma for whom abdominoperineal resection was indicated after a multidisciplinary team discussion. All patients must have social security insurance or equivalent social protection. The main objective is to assess the incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR) of two strategies of perineal closure after an abdominoperineal resection performed for anorectal cancer treatment: perineal filling with biological mesh versus primary perineal closure (70 patient in each arm). The secondary objectives focus on quality of life and morbidity data during a 1-year follow-up. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be performed in order to estimate the uncertainty surrounding the ICUR. CIs will be constructed using the non-parametric bootstrap approach. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve will be built so as to estimate the probability of efficiency of the biological meshes given a collective willingness-to-pay threshold.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board of ‘Nord Ouest 1’ (protocol reference number: 20.05.14.60714; national number: 2020-A01169-30).The results will be disseminated through conventional scientific channels.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT02841293)
    corecore