Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
You searched for:"Letícia Maria de Oliveira"
We found (4) results for your search.Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009;31(1):17-21
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032009000100004
PURPOSE: to evaluate risk factors for the development of genital prolapse in the Brazilian population. METHODS: case-control study involving 316 patients submitted to prolapse staging, according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. The patients were divided into two groups: in the Case Group there were 107 patients with prolapse at stage III or IV, and in the Control Group, 209 women at stage 0 or I. In the anamnesis, the selected women have been questioned about the presence of possible risk factors for genital prolapse, such as: age, menopause age, parturition, delivery type (vaginal, caesarean section or forceps), occurrence of fetal macrosomia, family history of genital dystopia in first degree relatives, chronic cough and intestinal constipation. RESULTS: The variables that were different between the groups were: age, body mass index, parturition, number of vaginal, caesarean section or forceps deliveries, newborn weight and positive family history for prolapse. Race, menopause age, chronic cough and intestinal constipation did not present differences between the groups. After logistic regression, only three variables have been shown to be independent risk factors: presence of at least one vaginal delivery, fetal macrosomia and positive family history for dystopia. Cesarean section was shown to be a protective factor. CONCLUSION: in the Brazilian population, the independent risk factor for genital prolapse were: personal antecedent of at least one vaginal delivery, fetal macrosomia and family history of dystopia.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009;31(1):17-21
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032009000100004
PURPOSE: to evaluate risk factors for the development of genital prolapse in the Brazilian population. METHODS: case-control study involving 316 patients submitted to prolapse staging, according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. The patients were divided into two groups: in the Case Group there were 107 patients with prolapse at stage III or IV, and in the Control Group, 209 women at stage 0 or I. In the anamnesis, the selected women have been questioned about the presence of possible risk factors for genital prolapse, such as: age, menopause age, parturition, delivery type (vaginal, caesarean section or forceps), occurrence of fetal macrosomia, family history of genital dystopia in first degree relatives, chronic cough and intestinal constipation. RESULTS: The variables that were different between the groups were: age, body mass index, parturition, number of vaginal, caesarean section or forceps deliveries, newborn weight and positive family history for prolapse. Race, menopause age, chronic cough and intestinal constipation did not present differences between the groups. After logistic regression, only three variables have been shown to be independent risk factors: presence of at least one vaginal delivery, fetal macrosomia and positive family history for dystopia. Cesarean section was shown to be a protective factor. CONCLUSION: in the Brazilian population, the independent risk factor for genital prolapse were: personal antecedent of at least one vaginal delivery, fetal macrosomia and family history of dystopia.
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023;45(6):337-346
, , , , , , To compare the use of mirabegron with anticholinergics drugs for the treatment of overactive bladder (OB).
Systematic searches were conducted in EMBASE, PUBMED, Cochrane, and LILACS databases from inception to September 2021. We included RCTs, women with clinically proven OB symptoms, studies that compared mirabegron to antimuscarinic drugs, and that evaluated the efficacy, safety or adherence.
RevMan 5.4 was used to combine results across studies. We derived risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs using a random-effects meta-analytic model. Cochrane Collaboration Tool and GRADE was applied for risk of bias and quality of the evidence.
We included 14 studies with a total of 10,774 patients. Fewer total adverse events was reported in mirabegron group than in antimuscarinics group [RR 0.93 (0.89–0.98)]. The risk of gastrointestinal tract disorders and dry mouth were lower with mirabegron [RR 0,58 (0.48–0.68); 9375 patients; RR 0.44 (0.35–0.56), 9375 patients, respectively]. No difference was reported between mirabegron and antimuscarinics drugs for efficacy. The adherence to treatment was 87.7% in both groups [RR 0.99 (0.98–1.00)].
Mirabegron and antimuscarinics have comparable efficacy and adherence rates; however, mirabegron showed fewer total and isolated adverse events.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023;45(6):337-346
, , , , , , To compare the use of mirabegron with anticholinergics drugs for the treatment of overactive bladder (OB).
Systematic searches were conducted in EMBASE, PUBMED, Cochrane, and LILACS databases from inception to September 2021. We included RCTs, women with clinically proven OB symptoms, studies that compared mirabegron to antimuscarinic drugs, and that evaluated the efficacy, safety or adherence.
RevMan 5.4 was used to combine results across studies. We derived risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs using a random-effects meta-analytic model. Cochrane Collaboration Tool and GRADE was applied for risk of bias and quality of the evidence.
We included 14 studies with a total of 10,774 patients. Fewer total adverse events was reported in mirabegron group than in antimuscarinics group [RR 0.93 (0.89–0.98)]. The risk of gastrointestinal tract disorders and dry mouth were lower with mirabegron [RR 0,58 (0.48–0.68); 9375 patients; RR 0.44 (0.35–0.56), 9375 patients, respectively]. No difference was reported between mirabegron and antimuscarinics drugs for efficacy. The adherence to treatment was 87.7% in both groups [RR 0.99 (0.98–1.00)].
Mirabegron and antimuscarinics have comparable efficacy and adherence rates; however, mirabegron showed fewer total and isolated adverse events.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40(8):477-490
To compare surgical treatments for stress urinary incontinence in terms of efficiency and complications.
We searched the MEDLINE and COCHRANE databases using the terms stress urinary incontinence, surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence and sling. Selection of Studies Forty-eight studies were selected, which amounted to a total of 6,881 patients with scores equal to or higher than 3 in the Jadad scale.
Each study was read by one of the authors, added to a standardized table and checked by a second author. We extracted data on intervention details, follow-up time, the results of treatment and adverse events.
Comparing retropubic versus transobturator slings, the former was superior for both objective (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.54) and subjective (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48) cures. Between minislings versus other slings, there was a difference favoring other slings for subjective cure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39- 0.86). Between pubovaginal sling versus Burch surgery, there was a difference for both objective (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.50-2.77) and subjective (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.10-2.44) cures, favoring pubovaginal sling. Therewas no difference in the groups: midurethral slings versus Burch, pubovaginal sling versus midurethral slings, transobturator slings, minislings versus other slings (objective cure). Retropubic and pubovaginal slings are more retentionist. Retropubic slings have more bladder perforation, and transobturator slings, more leg and groin pain, neurological lesion and vaginal perforation.
Pubovaginal slings are superior to Burch colposuspension surgery but exhibit more retention. Retropubic slings are superior to transobturator slings, with more adverse events. Other slings are superior to minislings in the subjective aspect. There was no difference in the comparisons between midurethral slings versus Burch colposuspension surgery, pubovaginal versus midurethral slings, and inside-out versus outside-in transobturator slings.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40(8):477-490
To compare surgical treatments for stress urinary incontinence in terms of efficiency and complications.
We searched the MEDLINE and COCHRANE databases using the terms stress urinary incontinence, surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence and sling. Selection of Studies Forty-eight studies were selected, which amounted to a total of 6,881 patients with scores equal to or higher than 3 in the Jadad scale.
Each study was read by one of the authors, added to a standardized table and checked by a second author. We extracted data on intervention details, follow-up time, the results of treatment and adverse events.
Comparing retropubic versus transobturator slings, the former was superior for both objective (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.54) and subjective (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.48) cures. Between minislings versus other slings, there was a difference favoring other slings for subjective cure (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39- 0.86). Between pubovaginal sling versus Burch surgery, there was a difference for both objective (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.50-2.77) and subjective (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.10-2.44) cures, favoring pubovaginal sling. Therewas no difference in the groups: midurethral slings versus Burch, pubovaginal sling versus midurethral slings, transobturator slings, minislings versus other slings (objective cure). Retropubic and pubovaginal slings are more retentionist. Retropubic slings have more bladder perforation, and transobturator slings, more leg and groin pain, neurological lesion and vaginal perforation.
Pubovaginal slings are superior to Burch colposuspension surgery but exhibit more retention. Retropubic slings are superior to transobturator slings, with more adverse events. Other slings are superior to minislings in the subjective aspect. There was no difference in the comparisons between midurethral slings versus Burch colposuspension surgery, pubovaginal versus midurethral slings, and inside-out versus outside-in transobturator slings.
, , , , , Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023;45(10):584-593
, , , , , , , , To evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of the surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in stages III and IV by sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) or uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) by comparing anatomical and subjective cure rates and quality-of-life parameters (through the version validated for the Portuguese language of the Prolapse Quality of Life [P-QoL] questionnaire) under two definitions: genital prolapse Ba, Bp, and C< −1 (stage I) and Ba, Bp, and C ≤ 0 (stage II).
After we obtained approval from the Ethics Committee (under CAAE 0833/06) and registered the study in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 01347021), 51 patients were randomized into two groups: the USLS group (N = 26) and the SSLF group (N = 25), with follow-up 6 and 12 months after the procedures.
There was a significant improvement in the P-QoL score and anatomical measurements of all compartments in both groups after 12 months (p< 0.001). The anatomical cure rates in the USLS and SSLF groups, considering stage 1, were of 34.6% and 40% (anterior) respectively; of 100% both for groups (apical); and of 73.1% and 92% (posterior) respectively. The rates of adverse outcomes were of 42% (N = 11) and 36% (N = 11) for the USLS and SSLF groups respectively (p = 0.654), and those outcomes were excessive bleeding, bladder perforation (intraoperative) or gluteal pain, and urinary infection (postoperative), among others, without differences between the groups.
High cure rates in all compartments were observed according to the anatomical criterion (stage I), without differences in P-QoL scores and complications either with USLS or SSLF for the surgical treatment of accentuated POP.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023;45(10):584-593
, , , , , , , , To evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of the surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in stages III and IV by sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) or uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) by comparing anatomical and subjective cure rates and quality-of-life parameters (through the version validated for the Portuguese language of the Prolapse Quality of Life [P-QoL] questionnaire) under two definitions: genital prolapse Ba, Bp, and C< −1 (stage I) and Ba, Bp, and C ≤ 0 (stage II).
After we obtained approval from the Ethics Committee (under CAAE 0833/06) and registered the study in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT 01347021), 51 patients were randomized into two groups: the USLS group (N = 26) and the SSLF group (N = 25), with follow-up 6 and 12 months after the procedures.
There was a significant improvement in the P-QoL score and anatomical measurements of all compartments in both groups after 12 months (p< 0.001). The anatomical cure rates in the USLS and SSLF groups, considering stage 1, were of 34.6% and 40% (anterior) respectively; of 100% both for groups (apical); and of 73.1% and 92% (posterior) respectively. The rates of adverse outcomes were of 42% (N = 11) and 36% (N = 11) for the USLS and SSLF groups respectively (p = 0.654), and those outcomes were excessive bleeding, bladder perforation (intraoperative) or gluteal pain, and urinary infection (postoperative), among others, without differences between the groups.
High cure rates in all compartments were observed according to the anatomical criterion (stage I), without differences in P-QoL scores and complications either with USLS or SSLF for the surgical treatment of accentuated POP.
