Search

Your search keyword '"de Tayrac R"' showing total 109 results
Start Over Author "de Tayrac R" Search Limiters Peer Reviewed
109 results on '"de Tayrac R"'

4. Traduction française de la terminologie commune de l’International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) et de l’International Continence Society (ICS) relative à la prise en charge conservatrice et non pharmacologique des troubles pelvi-périnéaux de la femme

Author

Billecocq, S., Bo, K., Dumoulin, C., Aigon, A., Amarenco, G., Bakker, E., Cornillet-Bernard, M., Crétinon, S., Deffieux, X., Lartigues, G., Loobuick, M., Steenstrup, B., and de Tayrac, R.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

19. Konzept für einen zusammengesetzten, auf dem Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) basierenden Endpunkt für prospektive klinische Studien zur Bewertung der Diagnostik und der klinischen Ergebnisse von geburtsbedingten Analsphinkterverletzungen.

Author

Baekelandt, J., Iwanowski, P., Borycka, K., Młyńczak, M., Athanasiou, S., Dziki, A., Fernando, R., Franco, R., Grzesiak, M., Oszukowski, P., Heřman, H., Ratto, C., Rizk, D.E. A., Salvatore, S., Stuart, A., de Tayrac, R., and Spinelli, A.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Diagnostic et prise en charge de l’incontinence urinaire d’effort de la femme adulte. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique du Collège national des gynécologues et obstétriciens français (CNGOF)

Author

Fritel, X., Fauconnier, A., Bader, G., Cosson, M., Debodinance, P., Deffieux, X., Denys, P., Dompeyre, P., Faltin, D., Fatton, B., Haab, F., Hermieux, J.-F., Kerdraon, J., Mares, P., Mellier, G., Michel-Laaengh, N., Nadeau, C., Robain, G., de Tayrac, R., and Jacquetin, B.

Published
2010
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. Critères diagnostiques d’une névralgie pudendale (Critères de Nantes)

Author

Labat, J. -J., Riant, T., Robert, R., Amarenco, G., Lefaucheur, J. -P., Benaïm, J., De Tayrac, R., Galaup, J. -P., Guérineau, M., Khalfallah, M., Lassaux, A., Le Fort, M., Lucot, J. -P., Rabischong, B., Rigaud, J., Siproudhis, L., Arné-Bès, M. -C., Bonniaud, V., Charvier, K., Dumas, P., Herbault, A. -G., Lapeyre, E., Leroi, A. -M., Prat Pradal, D., Soler, J. -M., Testut, M. -F., Raibaut, P., Scheiber-Nogueira, M. -C., and Thomas, C.

Published
2007
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Serious complications and recurrences after pelvic organ prolapse surgery for 2309 women in the VIGI‐MESH registry.

Author

Fritel, X, de Tayrac, R, de Keizer, J, Campagne‐Loiseau, S, Cosson, M, Ferry, P, Deffieux, X, Lucot, J‐P, Wagner, L, Debodinance, P, Saussine, C, Pizzoferrato, A‐C, Carlier‐Guérin, C, Thubert, T, Panel, L, Bosset, P‐O, Nkounkou, E, Ramanah, R, Boisramé, T, and Charles, T

Subjects
*PELVIC organ prolapse, *SURGICAL meshes, *SURGERY, *REOPERATION, *MULTIVARIATE analysis, VAGINAL surgery
Abstract

Objective: To assess the incidence of serious complications and reoperations for recurrence after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and compare the three most common types of repair. Design: Prospective cohort study using a registry. Setting: Nineteen French surgical centres. Population: A total of 2309 women participated between 2017 and 2019. Methods: A multivariate analysis including an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach was used to obtain three comparable groups. Main outcome measures: Serious complications and subsequent reoperations for POP recurrence. Results: The median follow‐up time was 17.6 months. Surgeries were native tissue vaginal repairs (n = 504), transvaginal mesh placements (n = 692) and laparoscopic sacropexies with mesh (n = 1113). Serious complications occurred among 52 women (2.3%), and reoperation for POP recurrence was required for 32 women (1.4%). At 1 year the cumulative weighted incidence of serious complications was 1.8% for native tissue vaginal repair, 3.9% for transvaginal mesh and 2.2% for sacropexy, and the rates for reoperation for recurrence of POP were 1.5, 0.7 and 1.1%, respectively. Compared with native tissue vaginal repair, the risk of serious complications was higher in the transvaginal mesh group (weighted hazard ratio, wHR 3.84, 95% CI 2.43–6.08) and the sacropexy group (wHR 2.48, 95% CI 1.45–4.23), whereas the risk of reoperation for prolapse recurrence was lower in both the transvaginal mesh (wHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13–0.39) and sacropexy (wHR 0.29, 95% CI 0.18–0.47) groups. Conclusions: Our results suggest that native tissue vaginal repairs have the lowest risk of serious complications but the highest risk of reoperation for recurrence. These results are useful for informing women and for shared decision making. Laparoscopic sacropexy had fewer serious complications than transvaginal mesh and fewer reoperations for recurrence than vaginal repair. Laparoscopic sacropexy had fewer serious complications than transvaginal mesh and fewer reoperations for recurrence than vaginal repair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

45. Long‐term outcomes of primary cystocele repair by transvaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy: extended follow up of the PROSPERE multicentre randomised trial.

Author

Lucot, J‐P, Cosson, M, Verdun, S, Debodinance, P, Bader, G, Campagne‐Loiseau, S, Salet‐Lizee, D, Akladios, C, Ferry, P, De Tayrac, R, Delporte, P, Curinier, S, Deffieux, X, Blanc, S, Capmas, P, Duhamel, A, Fritel, X, and Fauconnier, A

Subjects
SURGICAL meshes, VAGINAL surgery, TRANSVAGINAL surgery, PELVIC organ prolapse, LAPAROSCOPIC surgery, PSYCHOLOGICAL distress
Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) and transvaginal mesh (TVM) at 4 years. Design: Extended follow up of a randomised trial. Setting: Eleven centres. Population: Women with cystocele stage ≥2 (pelvic organ prolapse quantification [POP‐Q], aged 45–75 years without previous prolapse surgery. Methods: Synthetic non‐absorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space and sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments and/or muscles (TVM). Main outcome measures: Functional outcomes (pelvic floor distress inventory [PFDI‐20] as primary outcome); anatomical assessment (POP‐Q), composite outcome of success; re‐interventions for complications. Results: A total of 220 out of 262 randomised patients have been followed at 4 years. PFDI‐20 significantly improved in both groups and was better (but below the minimal clinically important difference) after LS (mean difference −7.2 points; 95% CI −14.0 to −0.05; P = 0.029). The improvement in quality of life and the success rate (LS 70%, 61–81% versus TVM 71%, 62–81%; hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.55–1.54; P = 0.75) were similar. POP‐Q measurements did not differ, except for point C (LS −57 mm versus TVM −48 mm, P = 0.0093). The grade III or higher complication rate was lower after LS (2%, 0–4.7%) than after TVM (8.7%, 3.4–13.7%; hazard ratio 4.6, 95% CI 1.007–21.0, P = 0.049)). Conclusions: Both techniques provided improvement and similar success rates. LS had a better benefit–harm balance with fewer re‐interventions due to complications. TVM remains an option when LS is not feasible. At 4 years, Laparoscopic Sacropexy (LS) had a better benefit–harm balance with fewer re‐interventions due to complications than Trans‐Vaginal Mesh (TVM). At 4 years LS had a better benefit–harm balance with fewer re‐interventions due to complications than TVM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results