Publicación: Complications from the use of pessary with support and without support in the complete genital prolapse
| dc.creator | Espitia De La Hoz, Franklin J. | |
| dc.date | 2015-12-03 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-03-14T20:12:15Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-03-14T20:12:15Z | |
| dc.description | 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. | es-ES |
| dc.description | 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. | en-US |
| dc.format | application/pdf | |
| dc.identifier | https://revistas.uis.edu.co/index.php/revistamedicasuis/article/view/5207 | |
| dc.identifier | 10.18273/revmed.v28n3-2015005 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://noesis.uis.edu.co/handle/20.500.14071/5825 | |
| dc.language | spa | |
| dc.publisher | Universidad Industrial de Santander | es-ES |
| dc.relation | https://revistas.uis.edu.co/index.php/revistamedicasuis/article/view/5207/5516 | |
| dc.rights.accessrights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.rights.coar | http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 | |
| dc.rights.creativecommons | Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | |
| dc.rights.license | Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) | |
| dc.source | Revista Médicas UIS; v. 28 n. 3 (2015): Médicas UIS; 309-315 | pt-BR |
| dc.source | Médicas UIS; Vol. 28 No. 3 (2015): Médicas UIS; 309-315 | en-US |
| dc.source | Médicas UIS; Vol. 28 Núm. 3 (2015): Médicas UIS; 309-315 | es-ES |
| dc.source | 1794-5240 | |
| dc.source | 0121-0319 | |
| dc.subject | Pessaries | en-US |
| dc.subject | Indications | en-US |
| dc.subject | Organ Sparing Treatments | en-US |
| dc.subject | Pelvic Organ Prolapse | en-US |
| dc.subject | Uterine Prolapse | en-US |
| dc.subject | Peasrios | es-ES |
| dc.subject | Indicaciones | es-ES |
| dc.subject | Tratamientos Conservadores del Organo | es-ES |
| dc.subject | Polapso de organo Pélvico | es-ES |
| dc.subject | Prolapso Uterino | es-ES |
| dc.title | Complications from the use of pessary with support and without support in the complete genital prolapse | en-US |
| dc.title | Complicaciones del uso del pesario con soporte y sin soporte en el prolapso genital completo | es-ES |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | |
| dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication |