International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 417–424 | Cite as

Labhardt’s colpoperineocleisis: subjective results of an alternative treatment for genital prolapse in patients who are not sexually active—2-year follow-up

  • Javier Pizarro-BerdichevskyEmail author
  • Gonzalo Galleguillos
  • Rodrigo Cuevas
  • Bernardita Blümel
  • Alejandro Pattillo
  • Silvana González
  • Alejandro Majerson
  • Oslando Padilla
  • Mauricio Cuello
  • Juan Andrés Ortiz
  • Howard B. Goldman
IUJ Video


Introduction and hypothesis

Genital prolapse affects up to 50 % of multiparous women and has an impact on quality of life (QoL) for many. Vaginal obliterative techniques are relevant in older patients who are not sexually active. We performed Labhardt’s colpoperineocleisis in such patients. The objective was the evaluation of subjective outcomes of this technique using PGI-I.


Retrospective cohort analysis of patients. We performed a bivariate, multivariate analysis, and survival curves for subjective improvement.


Seventy-four cases were analyzed. Average age of the patients was 72 years, median parity 4, 95.9 % POP-Q stage III or IV, anterior leading edge defect in 61.1 %. Operating time: 54 min, estimated blood loss 70 ml, no intraoperative complications, 12 patients had protocol deviations with changes in the recommended type of suture. Median hospital stay was 2 days and average follow-up 24.9 months. There was 13.5 % anatomical recurrence, 3 of which (30 %) were in patients with protocol deviations. 1.9 % developed clinically significant de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI). PGI-I: 64 (86 %) reported subjective improvement and 10 did not. In the subjective improvement group, 98.4 % reported being very much or much better. In the non-subjective improvement group 80 % reported that they were the same as before surgery and 20 % were worse. In bivariate analysis anatomical recurrence showed significance and persisted after multivariate analysis with an OR of 8322 for subjective failure.


Labhardt’s colpoperineocleisis is a safe technique with good subjective results. It has few complications, an acceptable recurrence rate, and a low rate of de novo SUI. It may be important to use the #0 or #1 polydioxanone sutures, as these are associated with better outcomes in this series. Comparative studies with other obliterative techniques are needed.


Pelvic organ prolapse Gynecological surgical procedures Frail elderly Quality of life Vaginal prolapse 



Pelvic organ prolapse


Patient global impression of improvement


Stress urinary incontinence


Odds ratio


Body mass index


Pelvic organ prolapse quantification


Incontinence severity index



Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this video article and any accompanying images.


We are deeply grateful to Dr. Manuel Fernandez who has devoted his professional life to gynecological–oncological surgery and as a great vaginal surgeon, selflessly taught us this technique. We would also like to thank Dr. Marco Aramayo, Dr. Marco Arellano, and Jacobo Alvo for their critical review of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest


Supplementary material


(MP4 95755 kb)


  1. 1.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER (2009) Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol 114:1278–1283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM. (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD004014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Siddique S, Thompson P, Zyczynski H (2006) Colpocleisis: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:261–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abbasy S, Kenton K (2010) Obliterative procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 53:86–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reiffenstuhl G (1996) Vaginal operations. In: Surgical anatomy and technique. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 161–180Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L (2003) Colpocleisis and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1241–1244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denehy TR, Choe JY, Gregori CA, Breen JL (1995) Modified Le Fort partial colpocleisis with Kelly urethral plication and posterior colpoperineoplasty in the medically compromised elderly: a comparison with vaginal hysterectomy, anterior colporrhaphy, and posterior colpoperineoplasty. Am J Obstet Gynecol 173:1697–1701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith AL, Karp DR, Lefevre R, Aguilar VC, Davila GW (2011) LeFort colpocleisis and stress incontinence: weighing the risk of voiding dysfunction with sling placement. Int Urogynecol J 22:1357–1362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wheeler TL, Richter HE, Burgio KL, Redden DT, Chen CC, Goode PS, Varner RE (2005) Regret, satisfaction, and symptom improvement: analysis of the impact of partial colpocleisis for the management of severe pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:2067–2070PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Labhardt A (1932) Kolpoperineokleisis subtotalis. Prolapsoperationen bei alten Frauen. Zbl Gynäkol 56:834–838Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Huisseling JC (2009) A modification of Labhardt’s high perineoplasty for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in the very old. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:185–191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Massenbach MW, Ohlenroth G (1965) Results of subtotal colpoperineocleisis according to the Labhardt method modified by H. Martius. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 25:695–700Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kilic G, Tunca JC (2007) Use of the Labhardt procedure to repair pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 34:91–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pizarro-Berdichevsky J, Galleguillos G, Cuevas R, Aramayo M, Blumel B, Pattillo A, Gonzalez S, Majerson A, Alvo J, Valdevenito G, Cuello M, Ortiz J (2012) Colpoperineocleisis de Labhardt: una alternativa segura y eficaz para el tratamiento del prolapso genital en pacientes sin actividad sexual. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 77:201–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Spino C (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114:600–609PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kasturi S, Bentley-Taylor M, Woodman PJ, Terry CL, Hale DS (2012) High uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: comparison of absorbable vs. permanent suture for apical fixation. Int Urogynecol J 23:941–945Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chung CP, Miskimins R, Kuehl TJ, Yandell PM, Shull BL. (2012) Permanent suture used in uterosacral ligament suspension offers better anatomical support than delayed absorbable suture. Int Urogynecol J 23:223–227Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wong MJ, Rezvan A, Bhatia NN, Yazdany T (2011) Uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension using delayed absorbable monofilament suture. Int Urogynecol J 22:1389–1394Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Madhuvrata P, Glazener C, Boachie C, Allahdin S, Bain C (2011) A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin (Vicryl) mesh, polydioxanone (PDS) or polyglactin (Vicryl) sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: outcomes at 2 years. J Obstet Gynaecol 31:429–435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2010) Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21:523–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Bradley CS, Ye W, Visco AC, Cundiff GW, Zyczynski HM, Fine P, Weber AM (2008) Pelvic support, pelvic symptoms, and patient satisfaction after colpocleisis. Int Urogyneco J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1603–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nilsson CG, Kuuva N, Falconer C, Rezapour M, Ulmsten U (2001) Long-term results of the tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) procedure for surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogyneco J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12 [Suppl 2]:S5–S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 7
    Email author
  • Gonzalo Galleguillos
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Rodrigo Cuevas
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bernardita Blümel
    • 1
  • Alejandro Pattillo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Silvana González
    • 1
  • Alejandro Majerson
    • 6
  • Oslando Padilla
    • 5
  • Mauricio Cuello
    • 2
  • Juan Andrés Ortiz
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Howard B. Goldman
    • 3
  1. 1.Urogynecology UnitComplejo Asistencial Dr. Sotero del RioSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Division Obstetricia y Ginecologia, Facultad de MedicinaPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  4. 4.Clinica Santa MariaSantiagoChile
  5. 5.Departamento de Salud Pública, Facultad de MedicinaPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileSantiagoChile
  6. 6.Urology, Facultad de MedicinaPontificia Universidad Catolica de ChileSantiagoChile
  7. 7.Av Concha y Toro 3459, Puente Alto, 8207257SantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations