Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 1187–1192 | Cite as

Vaginal hysterectomy with apical fixation and anterior vaginal wall repair for prolapse: surgical technique and medium-term results

  • Juliane Marschke
  • Carlo Michael Pax
  • Kathrin Beilecke
  • Frank Schwab
  • Ralf Tunn
Original Article
  • 270 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Stabilization of the vaginal apex (level 1) is an important component of operations to correct pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We report functional and anatomical results and patient-reported outcomes of our technique of vaginal vault fixation at the time of vaginal hysterectomy.

Methods

One hundred and nine patients—mean 69 years, range 50.4–83.8; body mass index (BMI) 26.3, range 17.7–39.5—with symptomatic stage 2–3 uterine prolapse combined with stage 3–4 cystocele underwent vaginal hysterectomy with anterior vaginal wall repair; the apex was formed with high closure of the peritoneum and incorporation of the uterosacral and round ligaments. Only absorbable sutures were used. Follow-up included clinical examination with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q) scoring, introital ultrasonography, quality of life (QoL) Likert scale, and the German Pelvic Floor Questionnaire.

Results

Seventy patients (64%) were available for a follow-up after a mean of 2.8 years (range, 1.6–4.2). At follow-up, point C was stage 0 in 55 (78.6%) women and stage 1 in 15 (21.4%). The anterior vaginal wall was stage 0 or 1 in 35 (50%), stage 2 (no cystocele beyond the hymen) in 34 (49%), and stage 3 in 1 (1.4%). Vaginal length (VL) was 9 cm. Four women (4%) were reoperated for prolapse: two for recurrent anterior compartment prolapse and two for de novo rectocele. Postvoid residuals >150 ml were seen in 21(30%) patients preoperatively and resolved postoperatively in 20. Urgency occurred in nine (13%), stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in ten (14%), and nocturia in 19 (27%). No patient had discomfort at the vaginal vault and 62 patients (87%) reported improved QoL, which did not correlate with anatomical results. Cystocele ≥ 2° at follow-up was associated with BMI >25 (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Our surgical technique without permanent material offers good apical support and functional and subjective results. Anatomical improvement was achieved in all cases of cystocele repair. Recurrent cystoceles are often asymptomatic.

Keywords

Vaginal vault fixation Apical support Prolapse Vaginal hysterectomy Native tissue repair 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(3):437–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Graefe, et al. Vaginal vault suspension at hysterectomy for prolapse–myths and facts, anatomical requirements, fixation techniques, documentation and cost accounting. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2012;72:1099–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bump RC, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baessler K. Validation of a pelvic floor questionnaire with improvement and satisfaction scales to assess symptom severity, bothersomeness and quality of life before and after pelvic floor therapy. Aktuelle Urol. 2011;42:316–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moschcowitz AV. The pathogenesis, anatomy, and cure of prolapse of the rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1912;15:7–12.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cruikshank SH, Kovac SR. Randomized comparison of three surgical methods used at the time of vaginal hysterectomy to prevent posterior enterocele. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:859–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colombo M, Milani R. Sacrospinous ligament fixation and modified McCall culdoplasty during vaginal hysterectomy for advanced uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:13–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chene G, Tardieu AS, Savary D, et al. Anatomical and functional results of McCall culdoplasty in the prevention of enteroceles and vaginal vault prolapse after vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19:1007–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, et al. A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:1365–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Amreich IA. Ätiologie und Operation des Scheidenstumpfprolapses. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1951;63:74–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richter K. Die chirurgische Anatomie der Vaginaefixatio sacrospinalis vaginalis. Ein Beitrag zur operativen Behandlung des Scheidenblindsackprolapses. Geburtsh Frauenheilk. 1968;28:321–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack MC, et al. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse? Int Urogynecol J. 2001;12:381–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lopes ED, Lemos NL, Carramão Sda S, et al. Transvaginal polypropylene mesh versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:389–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Florian-Rodrigues ME, et al. Inferior gluteal and other nerves associated with sacrospinous ligament: a cadaver study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:646.e1-e6.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiblicher Descensus genitalis, Diagnostik und Therapie. AWMF Registry No. 015–006, April 2016.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barber, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1023–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barber MD, et al. Defining success after surgery for POP. Obstet Gxneecol. 2009;114:600–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of POP. IUJ. 2013;24:1783–90.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vergeldt, et al. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26:1559–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Pelvic Floor CenterSt. Hedwig HospitalBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Medical StatisticsCharité University MedicineBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations