FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2605192132> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2605192132 abstract "You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Pelvic Prolapse II1 Apr 2017PD17-05 LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS ROBOTIC ASSISTED SACROCOLPOPEXY: A RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED TRIAL Ester Illiano, Manuel Di Biase, Pasquale Di Tonno, Gaetano De Rienzo, Alessandro Zucchi, Luigi Mearini, Daniele Maglia, and Elisabetta Costantini Ester IllianoEster Illiano More articles by this author , Manuel Di BiaseManuel Di Biase More articles by this author , Pasquale Di TonnoPasquale Di Tonno More articles by this author , Gaetano De RienzoGaetano De Rienzo More articles by this author , Alessandro ZucchiAlessandro Zucchi More articles by this author , Luigi MeariniLuigi Mearini More articles by this author , Daniele MagliaDaniele Maglia More articles by this author , and Elisabetta CostantiniElisabetta Costantini More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.852AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The present randomized study compares Laparoscopic sacropexy (LSC) and Robotic assisted sacropexy (RASC) in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) to demonstrate the equivalence between the two techniques METHODS Consecutive patients affected by symptomatic POP stage>II according to the POP-Q classification were prospectively randomized to test the clinical equivalence of RASC and LS. All women were preoperatively evaluated with history and physical examination. Urinary and sexual symptoms were assessed with the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI), the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7) and the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire. As primary outcome we evaluated the anatomical results considering as failure a POP>2 stage. Then we evaluated the difference between the two groups in terms of hospital stay length, blood loss, operating time, presence of voiding or storage symptoms and sexual function through the aforementioned questionnaires RESULTS To date 21 patients have been randomized to RASC and 19 to LSC. The mean follow-up was 23,36 months. No significant inter-group differences emerged in the pre-operative evaluations of age (mean 63.5 vs 58.82 yrs for RASC and LSC, p=0.06) and BMI (mean 24.59 vs 25.41 kg/m2 for RASC and LSC, p=0.55). The objective success rate was 81% for RASC vs 78,9% for LSC (p=0.6), 85% for RASC vs 63,2% for LSC (p=0.8) and 100% for RASC vs 94,7% for LSC (p=0.57) for cystocele, rectocele and point c/D repair respectively. Although not significant, operating time was longer for LSC (mean 213 min for LSC vs 184 min for RASC, p=0.11) and intra-operative blood loss was higher in RASC (mean 32 ml for RASC vs 47 ml for LSC, p=0.46). No difference emerged in hospital stays (mean 3.8 days for LSC vs 3.9 days for RASC, p=0.8). Functional results are reported in table 1. No major complications were detected, only 2 grade III complication according to Clavien-Dindo classification has been reported in the LSC group (1 bladder injury and 1 mesh exposure). The subjective success rate was very high, 100% of patients of both groups reported to be “much” and “very much” improved at the PGI-I questionnaire CONCLUSIONS RASC aims at providing a similar excellent outcome as LSC in terms of anatomical results, satisfaction rate, complications, sexual function and voiding and storage symptoms relief © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e354-e355 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Ester Illiano More articles by this author Manuel Di Biase More articles by this author Pasquale Di Tonno More articles by this author Gaetano De Rienzo More articles by this author Alessandro Zucchi More articles by this author Luigi Mearini More articles by this author Daniele Maglia More articles by this author Elisabetta Costantini More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2605192132 created "2017-04-14" @default.
• W2605192132 creator A5012625237 @default.
• W2605192132 creator A5022223622 @default.
• W2605192132 creator A5027361796 @default.
• W2605192132 creator A5033097058 @default.
• W2605192132 creator A5050392108 @default.
• W2605192132 creator A5051628779 @default.
• W2605192132 creator A5060954279 @default.
• W2605192132 creator A5071992569 @default.
• W2605192132 date "2017-04-01" @default.
• W2605192132 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2605192132 title "PD17-05 LAPAROSCOPIC VERSUS ROBOTIC ASSISTED SACROCOLPOPEXY: A RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED TRIAL" @default.
• W2605192132 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.852" @default.
• W2605192132 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2605192132 type Work @default.
• W2605192132 sameAs 2605192132 @default.
• W2605192132 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2605192132 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2605192132 hasAuthorship W2605192132A5012625237 @default.
• W2605192132 hasAuthorship W2605192132A5022223622 @default.
• W2605192132 hasAuthorship W2605192132A5027361796 @default.
• W2605192132 hasAuthorship W2605192132A5033097058 @default.
• W2605192132 hasAuthorship W2605192132A5050392108 @default.
• W2605192132 hasAuthorship W2605192132A5051628779 @default.
• W2605192132 hasAuthorship W2605192132A5060954279 @default.
• W2605192132 hasAuthorship W2605192132A5071992569 @default.
• W2605192132 hasBestOaLocation W26051921321 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConcept C2775871022 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConcept C2778531004 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConceptScore W2605192132C126322002 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConceptScore W2605192132C141071460 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConceptScore W2605192132C168563851 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConceptScore W2605192132C2775871022 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConceptScore W2605192132C2778531004 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConceptScore W2605192132C29456083 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConceptScore W2605192132C61434518 @default.
• W2605192132 hasConceptScore W2605192132C71924100 @default.
• W2605192132 hasIssue "4S" @default.
• W2605192132 hasLocation W26051921321 @default.
• W2605192132 hasOpenAccess W2605192132 @default.
• W2605192132 hasPrimaryLocation W26051921321 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W2002120878 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W3197234295 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W2519357708 @default.
• W2605192132 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2605192132 hasVolume "197" @default.
• W2605192132 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2605192132 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2605192132 magId "2605192132" @default.
• W2605192132 workType "article" @default.