Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Minimally Invasive Therapy for Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse pp 249–270Cite as

POP Complications and Their Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1315 Accesses

Part of the book series: Current Clinical Urology ((CCU))

Abstract

A thorough conversation between the patient and physician should take place before embarking on POP surgery. Specifically, if mesh use is planned to augment a repair, the surgeon should provide full disclosure regarding the potential adverse effects related to mesh. Evaluation of a patient after a mesh complication requires a complete workup. Experienced, trained pelvic surgeons may be able to recognize and treat these conditions with fewer complications. With the patient’s best outcome as the primary goal, all steps should be taken to prevent any complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, et al. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1096.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, et al. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205:230.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Memon H, Handa VL. Pelvic floor disorders following vaginal or cesarean delivery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;24:349.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lavy Y, Sand PK, Kaniel CI, et al. Can pelvic floor injury secondary to delivery be prevented? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kudish BI, Iglesia CB, Gutman RE, et al. Risk factors for prolapse development in white, black, and Hispanic women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Swift SE. The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gilmour DT, Dwyer PL, Carey MP. Lower urinary tract injury during gynecologic surgery and its detection by intraoperative cystoscopy. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:883.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2013;364:1826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Frankman EA, Wang L, Bunker CH, et al. Lower urinary tract injury in women in the United States, 1979–2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:495.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harkki-Siren P, Sjoberg J, Tiitinen A. Urinary tract injuries after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Visco AG, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, et al. The role of preoperative urodynamic testing in stress-continent women undergoing sacrocolpopexy: the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) randomized surgical trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:607.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Wei J. A mid urethral sling prevents incontinence among women undergoing vaginal prolapse repair—the OPUS trial. Glasgow, Scotland: International Continence Society; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ballert KN, Biggs GY, Isenalumhe Jr A, et al. Managing the urethra at transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a urodynamic approach. J Urol. 2009;181:679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. de Boer TA, Vierhout ME. Predictors for overactive bladder symptoms after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2011;23:366.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Diez-Itza I, Aizpitarte I, Becerro A, et al. Incidence of overactive bladder after vaginal hysterectomy and associated repairs for pelvic organ prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2009;68:65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Eilber KS, Kavaler E, Rodriguez LV, et al. Ten-year experience with transvaginal vesicovaginal fistula repair using tissue interposition. J Urol. 2003;169:1033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lentz G. Comprehensive gynecology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2012. p. 462.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, et al. Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:1299.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peterson TV, Karp DR, Aguilar VC, et al. Primary versus recurrent prolapse surgery: differences in outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Morgan DM, Larson K. Uterosacral and sacrospinous ligament suspension for restoration of apical vaginal support. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53:72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barber MD, Visco AG, Weidner AC, et al. Bilateral uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension with site-specific endopelvic fascia defect repair for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Buller JL, Thompson JR, Cundiff GW, et al. Uterosacral ligament: description of anatomic relationships to optimize surgical safety. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:873.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Montoya TI, Luebbehusen HI, Schaffer JI, et al. Sensory neuropathy following suspension of the vaginal apex to the proximal uterosacral ligaments. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(12):1735–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Siddiqui NY, Mitchell TR, Bentley RC, et al. Neural entrapment during uterosacral ligament suspension: an anatomic study of female cadavers. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Karram M, Goldwasser S, Kleeman S, et al. High uterosacral vaginal vault suspension with fascial reconstruction for vaginal repair of enterocele and vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:1339.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ridgeway B, Barber MD, Walters MD, et al. Small bowel obstruction after vaginal vault suspension: a series of three cases. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:1237.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Petri E, Ashok K. Sacrospinous vaginal fixation–current status. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Barksdale PA, Elkins TE, Sanders CK, et al. An anatomic approach to pelvic hemorrhage during sacrospinous ligament fixation of the vaginal vault. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:715.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Baumann M, Salvisberg C, Mueller M, et al. Sexual function after sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse: bad or mad? Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hefni MA, El-Toukhy TA. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127:257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Aigmueller T, Riss P, Dungl A, et al. Long-term follow-up after vaginal sacrospinous fixation: patient satisfaction, anatomical results and quality of life. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:965.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, et al. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Morgan DM, Rogers MA, Huebner M, et al. Heterogeneity in anatomic outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation for prolapse: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Shull BL, Capen CV, Riggs MW, et al. Bilateral attachment of the vaginal cuff to iliococcygeus fascia: an effective method of cuff suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:1669.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Maher CF, Murray CJ, Carey MP, et al. Iliococcygeus or sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Paraiso MF, Walters MD, Rackley RR, et al. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1752.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Miranda CS, Carvajal AR. Complications of operative gynecological laparoscopy. JSLS. 2003;7:53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, et al. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Dietz V, de Jong J, Huisman M, et al. The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:1271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack MC, et al. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12:381.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kilkku P, Gronroos M, Hirvonen T, et al. Supravaginal uterine amputation vs. hysterectomy. Effects on libido and orgasm. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1983;62:147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zucchi A, Costantini E, Mearini L, et al. Female sexual dysfunction in urogenital prolapse surgery: colposacropexy vs. hysterocolposacropexy. J Sex Med. 2008;5:139.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jeng CJ, Yang YC, Tzeng CR, et al. Sexual functioning after vaginal hysterectomy or transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension for uterine prolapse: a comparison. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:669.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG. 2010;117:62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG. 2004;111:50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Brummer TH, Jalkanen J, Fraser J, et al. FINHYST, a prospective study of 5279 hysterectomies: complications and their risk factors. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1741.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Beer M, Kuhn A. Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;119:144.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:1445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Visco AG, Weidner AC, Barber MD, et al. Vaginal mesh erosion after abdominal sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:205.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Ginath S, Garely AD, Condrea A, et al. Mesh erosion following abdominal sacral colpopexy in the absence and presence of the cervical stump. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(1):113–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cundiff GW, Varner E, Visco AG, et al. Risk factors for mesh/suture erosion following sacral colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:688.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nieminen K, Hiltunen KM, Laitinen J, et al. Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: a prospective, randomized pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1636.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kahn MA, Stanton SL, Kumar D. Posterior colporrhaphy is superior to the transanal repair for treatment of posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 1999;18:70.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Arnold MW, Stewart WR, Aguilar PS. Rectocele repair. Four years’ experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 1990;33:684.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Mathevet P, Valencia P, Cousin C, et al. Operative injuries during vaginal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;97:71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, et al. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1762.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Milani AL, Withagen MI, Schweitzer KJ, et al. Midline fascial plication under continuous digital transrectal control: which factors determine anatomic outcome? Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:623.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Singh K, Cortes E, Reid WM. Evaluation of the fascial technique for surgical repair of isolated posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Baessler K, et al. Midline rectovaginal fascial plication for repair of rectocele and obstructed defecation. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Porter WE, Steele A, Walsh P, et al. The anatomic and functional outcomes of defect-specific rectocele repairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:1353.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, et al. Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2009;116:1380.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. FDA. FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse; 2011. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262435.htm

  69. Lindau ST, Schumm LP, Laumann EO, et al. A study of sexuality and health among older adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:762.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Harmanli OH, Dandolu V, Chatwani AJ, et al. Total colpocleisis for severe pelvic organ prolapse. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:703.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Hoffman MS, Cardosi RJ, Lockhart J, et al. Vaginectomy with pelvic herniorrhaphy for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:364.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Abbasy S, Kenton K. Obliterative procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53:86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Fitzgerald MP, Richter HE, Bradley CS, et al. Pelvic support, pelvic symptoms, and patient satisfaction after colpocleisis. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:1603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Siddique S, et al. Colpocleisis: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. von Pechmann WS, Mutone M, Fyffe J, et al. Total colpocleisis with high levator plication for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Gutman RE, Bradley CS, Ye W, et al. Effects of colpocleisis on bowel symptoms among women with severe pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:461.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Fitzgerald MP, Kulkarni N, Fenner D. Postoperative resolution of urinary retention in patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1361.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Koski ME, Chow D, Bedestani A, et al. Colpocleisis for advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Urology. 2012;80:542.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. FDA. Surgical mesh for treatment of women with pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence FDA executive summary; 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ObstetricsandGynecologyDevices/UCM270402.pdf

  80. Elmer C, Falconer C, Hallin A, et al. Risk factors for mesh complications after trocar guided transvaginal mesh kit repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(7):1165–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Hendriks JC, et al. Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:629.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kaufman Y, Singh SS, Alturki H, et al. Age and sexual activity are risk factors for mesh exposure following transvaginal mesh repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Rogo-Gupta L, Raz S. Complications of female incontinence and pelvic reconstructive surgery. New York: Humana Press; 2013. p. 87.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  84. Dietz HP. Pelvic floor ultrasound: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;202:321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Svabik K, Martan A, Masata J, et al. Ultrasound appearances after mesh implantation–evidence of mesh contraction or folding? Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:529.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Feiner B, Maher C. Vaginal mesh contraction: definition, clinical presentation, and management. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:325.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Haylen BT, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(1):2–12. doi: 10.1002/nau.21036.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Tunitsky E, Abbott S, Barber MD. Interrater reliability of the International Continence Society and International Urogynecological Association (ICS/IUGA) classification system for mesh-related complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:442.e1.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Abramov Y, Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, et al. Site-specific rectocele repair compared with standard posterior colporrhaphy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:1451.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L. Outcome after rectovaginal fascia reattachment for rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:1360.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Glavind K, Madsen H. A prospective study of the discrete fascial defect rectocele repair. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000;79:145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Denise Chow M.D. & Forrest Jellison M.D.

  2. Division of Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Shlomo Raz M.D.

  3. Department of Urology, UCLA School of Medicine, 200 UCLA Medical Plaza, Suite 140, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Shlomo Raz M.D.

Authors
  1. Denise Chow M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shlomo Raz M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Forrest Jellison M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shlomo Raz M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA

    Gopal H. Badlani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Chow, D., Raz, S., Jellison, F. (2014). POP Complications and Their Management. In: Badlani, G. (eds) Minimally Invasive Therapy for Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Current Clinical Urology. Humana Press, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0008-4_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0008-4_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-0007-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-0008-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation