Publicación: Complications from the use of pessary with support and without support in the complete genital prolapse
Portada
Cargando...
Citas bibliográficas
Gestores Bibliográficos
Indexadores
Código QR
Autor corporativo
Recolector de datos
Otros/Desconocido
Director audiovisual
Editor
Universidad Industrial de Santander
Fecha
Citación
Título de serie/ reporte/ volumen/ colección
Es Parte de
Descripción
RESUMENIntroducción: La prevalencia del prolapso genital se ha incrementado; a menudo cursa de forma asintomática, se suele presentar con síntomas de un “bulto” vaginal. Las opciones de tratamiento incluyen ejercicios del suelo pélvico, manejo expectante, el uso de dispositivos mecánicos y corrección quirúrgica. Objetivo: Evaluar las complicaciones inmediatas y tardías del uso del pesario sin soporte y con soporte, en el manejo conservador del prolapso genital completo. Materiales y métodos: Estudio descriptivo, observacional, transversal y comparativo. Se revisaron 108 historias clínicas de las pacientes atendidas por prolapso genital completo y se evaluaron a las que se les manejó de forma conservadora con pesarios con soporte (Grupo A: 9) y sin soporte (Grupo B: 18). Los dos grupos se compararon tomando en cuenta el aumento de secreción vaginal, aparición de erosión y úlceras vaginales, impactación, fístulas, atipias citológicas, incarceración, hidronefrosis, infección vaginal y complicaciones intestinales. Resultados: Se analizaron 27 pacientes en total, 9 manejadas con pesarios con soporte y 18 con pesarios sin soporte. Hubo diferencia significativa en cuanto al aumento de secreción vaginal con menor secreción en uso del pesarios sin soporte (p =0,045). Se encontró diferencia en la aparición de erosión y úlceras vaginales (p < 0,05). Conclusiones: Hay diferencia significativa en cuanto al aumento de la secreción vaginal y la aparición de erosión y úlceras vaginales en el uso de pesarios sin soporte en comparación con el uso de pesarios con soporte. MÉD UIS. 2015;28(3):309-15.
Palabras clave: Pesarios. Indicaciones. Tratamientos Conservadores del Órgano. Prolapso de Órgano Pélvico. Prolapso Uterino.
ABSTRACTIntroduction: The prevalence of genital prolapse has increased; often it is asymptomatic, usually presents with symptoms of a vaginal “bulge”. Treatment options include pelvic floor exercises, expectant management, the use of mechanical devices and surgical correction.Objectives: Evaluate the immediate and late complications of the use of pessary without support and with support in the conservative management of the entire genital prolapse. Materials and Methods: Descriptive, observational, transversal and comparative study. 108 medical records of patients treated by complete genital prolapse were reviewed and evaluated which were managed conservatively with pessaries supported (Group A: 9) and unsupported (Group B: 18). The two groups are compared taking into account the increased vaginal discharge, vaginal appearance of erosion and ulcers, impaction, fistulas, cytologic atypia, incarceration, hydronephrosis, vaginal infection and intestinal complications. Results: 27 patients were analyzed in total, 9 handled pessaries supported and 18 unsupported pessaries. There was significant difference in terms of vaginal discharge increasment with less secretion in unsupported use of pessaries (p = 0.045). A difference was found in the occurrence of erosion and vaginal ulcers (p < 0.05 ). Conclusions: There is a significant difference in terms of vaginal discharge increasment and occurrence of erosion and ulcers vaginal pessaries using unsupported compared with using supported pessaries. MÉD UIS. 2015;28(3):309-15.
Introduction: The prevalence of genital prolapse has increased; often it is asymptomatic, usually presents with symptoms of a vaginal “bulge”. Treatment options include pelvic floor exercises, expectant management, the use of mechanical devices and surgical correction.Objectives: Evaluate the immediate and late complications of the use of pessary without support and with support in the conservative management of the entire genital prolapse. Materials and Methods: Descriptive, observational, transversal and comparative study. 108 medical records of patients treated by complete genital prolapse were reviewed and evaluated which were managed conservatively with pessaries supported (Group A: 9) and unsupported (Group B: 18). The two groups are compared taking into account the increased vaginal discharge, vaginal appearance of erosion and ulcers, impaction, fistulas, cytologic atypia, incarceration, hydronephrosis, vaginal infection and intestinal complications. Results: 27 patients were analyzed in total, 9 handled pessaries supported and 18 unsupported pessaries. There was significant difference in terms of vaginal discharge increasment with less secretion in unsupported use of pessaries (p = 0.045). A difference was found in the occurrence of erosion and vaginal ulcers (p < 0.05 ). Conclusions: There is a significant difference in terms of vaginal discharge increasment and occurrence of erosion and ulcers vaginal pessaries using unsupported compared with using supported pessaries. MÉD UIS. 2015;28(3):309-15.
Introduction: The prevalence of genital prolapse has increased; often it is asymptomatic, usually presents with symptoms of a vaginal “bulge”. Treatment options include pelvic floor exercises, expectant management, the use of mechanical devices and surgical correction.Objectives: Evaluate the immediate and late complications of the use of pessary without support and with support in the conservative management of the entire genital prolapse. Materials and Methods: Descriptive, observational, transversal and comparative study. 108 medical records of patients treated by complete genital prolapse were reviewed and evaluated which were managed conservatively with pessaries supported (Group A: 9) and unsupported (Group B: 18). The two groups are compared taking into account the increased vaginal discharge, vaginal appearance of erosion and ulcers, impaction, fistulas, cytologic atypia, incarceration, hydronephrosis, vaginal infection and intestinal complications. Results: 27 patients were analyzed in total, 9 handled pessaries supported and 18 unsupported pessaries. There was significant difference in terms of vaginal discharge increasment with less secretion in unsupported use of pessaries (p = 0.045). A difference was found in the occurrence of erosion and vaginal ulcers (p < 0.05 ). Conclusions: There is a significant difference in terms of vaginal discharge increasment and occurrence of erosion and ulcers vaginal pessaries using unsupported compared with using supported pessaries. MÉD UIS. 2015;28(3):309-15.