Labhardt’s colpoperineocleisis: subjective results of an alternative treatment for genital prolapse in patients who are not sexually active—2-year follow-up
- 392 Downloads
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.
KeywordsPelvic organ prolapse Gynecological surgical procedures Frail elderly Quality of life Vaginal prolapse
Pelvic organ prolapse
Patient global impression of improvement
Stress urinary incontinence
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
(MP4 95755 kb)
- 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
- 6.Reiffenstuhl G (1996) Vaginal operations. In: Surgical anatomy and technique. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 161–180Google Scholar
- 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
- 11.Labhardt A (1932) Kolpoperineokleisis subtotalis. Prolapsoperationen bei alten Frauen. Zbl Gynäkol 56:834–838Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.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.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.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