Evaluation of patients undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy due to symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in terms of gastrointestinal complications

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the intra- and postoperative gastrointestinal complications following abdominal sacrocolpopexy and determine the possible causes.

Methods: A total of 86 patients who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy due to symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse between January 2014 and January 2016 at Ä°zmir Tepecik Training and Research Hospital Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic were retrospectively reviewed using the hospital information system. Patients were divided into two groups: those with and without prolonged length of hospital stay. They were evaluated in terms of gastrointestinal complications and risk factors.

Results: The reason for prolonged hospitalization was nausea and vomiting in 24 (88%) of 27 patients. The symptoms in these patients were recovered with hydration, stopping of oral intake, and administration of antiemetics. Nasogastric decompression and parenteral nutrition were required in three (11%) patients due to clinical and radiological evidence of ileus. The parameter that significantly prolonged the length of hospital stay was prior abdominal surgery (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: There were obvious gastrointestinal complications in three out of 27 patients with prolonged length of hospital stay. These findings may be beneficial for preoperative patient counselling.

doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.344.15489

How to cite this:Inan AH, Beyan E, Budak A, Kanmaz AG. Evaluation of patients undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy due to symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in terms of gastrointestinal complications. Pak J Med Sci. 2018;34(4):940-944.   doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.344.15489

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.