Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Management of Concomitant Middle Compartment Disorders

  • Chapter
Pelvic Floor Disorders: Surgical Approach

Part of the book series: Updates in Surgery ((UPDATESSURG))

  • 1886 Accesses

Abstract

In the traditional “vertical” segregation of the pelvic floor into anterior, middle and posterior compartments, disorders of the middle compartment (uterus, vagina and introitus) were the preserve of gynecologists. This compartmentalized view of the anatomy, assessment, and management of pelvic floor disorders led to clinicians working in isolation, with a detailed understanding of pathologies limited to their area of expertise, often to the detriment of the patient. The modern, horizontally integrated view of the pelvic floor as a whole unit has necessitated multidisciplinary team working and has led to a more detailed and broader assessment process [1]. The aim of this strategy has been to optimize patient management by avoiding repeated clinic attendance and/or operative intervention because of a failure to accurately identify dysfunction of an adjacent organ of the pelvic floor.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Davila GW, Ghoniem GM (2003) Pelvic floor dysfunction: the importance of a multidisciplinary approach. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 16:3–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gonzalez-Argente FX, Jain A, Nogueras JJ (2001) Prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence and pelvic genital prolapse in females with anal incontinence or rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 44:920–926

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Barrington JW, Edwards G (2000) Posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 11:241–245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bortolini MA, Drutz HP, Lovatsis D, Alarab M (2010) Vaginal delivery and pelvic floor dysfunction: current evidence and implications for future research. Int Urogynecol J 21:1025–1030

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen B, Yeh J (2011) Alterations in connective tissue metabolism in stress incontinence and prolapse. J Urol 186:1768–1772

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sridharan I, Ma Y, Kim T et al (2012) Structural and mechanical profiles of native collagen fibers in vaginal wall connective tissues. Biomaterials 33:1520–1527

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Connell KA (2011) Elastogenesis in the vaginal wall and pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:2356–2358

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Moalli PA, Jones Ivy S, Meyn LA, Zyczynski HM (2003) Risk factors associated with pelvic floor disorders in women undergoing surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol 101:869–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bump RC, Norton PA (1998) Epidemiology and natural history of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 25:723–746

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Miyazaki FS (1987) Miya Hook ligature carrier for sacrospinous ligament suspension. Obstet Gynecol 70:286–288

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Holley RL, Varner RE, Gleason BP et al (1995) Recurrent pelvic support defects after sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse. J Am Coll Surg 180:444–448

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. FDA (2011) Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/ safety/alertsandnotices/UCM262760.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2013

  15. Lucente V, Murphy M, Saiz C (2012) Vaginal prolapse repair: suture repair versus mesh augmentation: a urogynecology perspective. Urol Clin North Am 39:325–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Abbasy S, Kenton K (2010) Obliterative procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 53:86–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Uzoma A, Farag KA (2009) Vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. doi:10.1155/ 2009/275621

    Google Scholar 

  18. Falk HC (1961) Uterine prolapse and prolapse of the vaginal vault treated by sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 18:113–115

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lane FE (1962) Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 20:72–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CMA (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst 4:CD004014

    Google Scholar 

  21. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A (2013) A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J 24:377–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kapoor B, Toms A, Hooper P et al (2002) Infective lumbar discitis following laparascopic sacrocolpopexy. J R Coll Surg Edinb 47:709–710

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G et al (2010) Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21:1413–1431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Good MM, Abele TA, Balgobin S et al (2013) Preventing L5-S1 discitis associated with sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gyneco 121:285–290

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM et al (2011) Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J 22:205–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Choi JM, Nguyen V, Khavari R et al (2012) Complex rectovaginal fistulas after pelvic organ prolapse repair with synthetic mesh: a multidisciplinary approach to evaluation and management. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 18:366–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tome AL, Tobias-Machado M, Correa WF (2011) Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) sacrocolpopexy: feasibility and efficacy of knotless procedure performed with conventional instruments. Int Urogynecol J 22:885–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC (2012) Robotic vs. abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology 79:532–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Germain A, Thibault F, Galifet M et al (2013) Long-term outcomes after totally robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Surg Endosc 27:525–529

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A et al (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mueller ER, Kenton K, Tarnay C et al (2012) Abdominal Colpopexy: Comparison of Endoscopic Surgical Strategies (ACCESS). Contemp Clin Trials 33:1011–1018

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Coates K et al (1997) Abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy: a new approach for correction of posterior compartment defects and perineal descent associated with vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gyneco 177:1345–1353

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Marinkovic SP, Stanton SL (2003) Triple compartment prolapse: sacrocolpopexy with anterior and posterior mesh extensions. BJOG 110:323–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lim M, Sagar PM, Gonsalves S et al (2007) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in females: functional outcome of mesh sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy as a combined procedure. Dis Colon Rectum 50:1412–1421

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sagar PM, Thekkinkattil DK, Heath RM et al (2008) Feasibility and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolporectopexy for combined vaginal and rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1414–1420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. D’Hoore A, Cadoni R, Penninckx F (2004) Long-term outcome of laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse. Br J Surg 91:1500–1505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Slawik S, Soulsby R, Carter H et al (2008) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction. Colorectal Dis 10:138–143

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. van der Hagen SJ, van Gemert WG, Soeters PB (2012) Transvaginal posterior colporrhaphy combined with laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy for isolated grade III rectocele: a prospective study of 27 patients. Colorectal Dis 14:1398–1402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hamoudi-Badrek A, Greenslade G, Dixon A (2013) How to deal with complications after laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR): lessons learnt from a tertiary referral center. Colorectal Dis 15:707–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wijffels N, Cunningham C, Dixon A (2011) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external rectal prolapse is safe and effective in the elderly. Does this make perineal procedures obsolete? Colorectal Dis 13:561–566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Exeter Surgical Health Services Research Unit, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, Devon, UK

    Neil J. Smart

Authors
  1. Neil J. Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William M. Chambers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia Boorman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil J. Smart .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy

    Achille Lucio Gaspari  & Pierpaolo Sileri  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Smart, N.J., Chambers, W.M., Boorman, P. (2014). Management of Concomitant Middle Compartment Disorders. In: Gaspari, A.L., Sileri, P. (eds) Pelvic Floor Disorders: Surgical Approach. Updates in Surgery. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5441-7_25

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-5441-7_25

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-5440-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-5441-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation