Post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse

Afifi, Reda; Sayed, Ayman T.

doi:10.1576/toag.7.2.089.27065

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is not suggested that the anterior vaginal wall be treated in isolation, but rather as part of a continuum from apical to posterior wall defects. Both of these defects have been reviewed recently within The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist and we would like to draw attention to Afifi and Sayed's review of post‐hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse 64 . Urinary dysfunction should also be considered in planning concomitant surgery.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesh‐free anterior vaginal wall repair: history or best practice?

McCracken

Lefebvre

2007

The Obstetric & Gynaecologis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key content Surgical correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse is a common gynaecological procedure, with traditional anterior colporrhaphy changing little over the past 100 years. Within the literature, terminology is confusing, both on anatomical structures and classification of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Synthetic meshes have become available but the evidence to support their use is limited and long‐term adverse effects are not clear. The paravaginal repair is an alternative to consider and can be approached vaginally, abdominally or laparoscopically. Learning objectives To revise the relevant anatomy of the anterior vaginal compartment and the classification of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. To review the evidence for the use of permanent mesh in pelvic floor surgery. To learn about the surgical options for correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse without the use of vaginal mesh. Ethical issues Should permanent meshes be used for anterior vaginal wall prolapse outside a clinical research setting? Please cite this article as: McCracken GR, Lefebvre G. Mesh‐free anterior vaginal wall repair: history or best practice? The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 2007;9:233–242.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mesh‐free anterior vaginal wall repair: history or best practice?

McCracken

Lefebvre

2007

The Obstetric & Gynaecologis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The occurrence of rectocele was found to be significantly lower in SSLF (5%) than in USLS (18%), according to an RCT 5 . A possible explanation is that after the correction of prolapse by SSLF, the vagina deviates to a more dorsal axis 25 . Thus, the anterior compartment becomes the main pressure‐bearing part compared with the posterior compartment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Sacrospinous ligament fixation with uterine preservation reduces the risk of anatomical recurrence in pelvic organ prolapse

Chou

Chuang

Kung

et al. 2020

LUTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study investigated the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and whether uterine preservation reduces the anatomical recurrence rate. Methods The medical records of 82 patients who received SSLF in a single medical center were reviewed retrospectively. Anatomical recurrence was defined as Pelvic Organ Prolapse‐Quantification stage 2 or higher in any compartment. The primary outcome was intergroup analysis for uterine preservation and concomitant hysterectomy patients. The secondary outcomes were anatomical recurrence risk factors and the incidence of adverse events. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for demographic differences between groups. Results The anatomical recurrence rate was 19.5%, and the retreatment rate was 11.0% (mean follow‐up duration: 22.9 months). Cystocele was the most common recurrent compartment (17.1%). The uterine preservation group (n = 66) was younger, had lower parity, and had fewer stage 3 to 4 cystoceles and uterine prolapses than the concomitant hysterectomy group (n = 16). Shorter operation times (99.4 minutes vs 153.7 minutes, P = .002) and lower anatomical recurrence rates (11.5% vs 45.5%, P = .039) were found in the uterine preservation group before and after PSM. Previous pelvic organ prolapse surgery (hazard ratio 3.14) and concomitant hysterectomy (hazard ratio 4.08) were identified as risk factors for anatomical recurrence. The most common adverse event was buttock pain (14.6%), which resolved spontaneously within 4 weeks. Conclusions SSLF is an effective surgical method using native tissue for pelvic reconstruction. Compared with concomitant hysterectomy, SSLF with uterine preservation reduces the anatomical recurrence rate.

show abstract

“…McCall culdoplasty and sacrospinous fixation can be carried out at vaginal hysterectomy [2]. Suturing the cardinal and uterosacral ligaments to the vaginal cuff at the time of abdominal or laparoscopic hysterectomy is effective in preventing post-hysterectomy vaginal prolapse [3]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse

Niblock¹,

Bailie

McCracken³

et al. 2017

Gynecol Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStudies have shown that vaginal vault prolapse can affect up to 43% of women following hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Many techniques have been described to prevent and treat vaginal vault prolapse. The primary objective of our study was to compare McCall’s culdoplasty (when performed along side vaginal hysterectomy) with laparoscopic uterosacral plication (when performed along side total laparoscopic hysterectomy) for prevention of vaginal vault prolapse. Secondary outcomes included inpatient stay and perioperative complications.A retrospective comparison study comparing 73 patients who underwent ‘laparoscopic hysterectomy and uterosacral plication’ against 70 patients who underwent ‘vaginal hysterectomy and McCall culdoplasty’. All operations were carried out by two trained surgeons.ResultsThere was no significant difference between BMI or parity. There were statistically significantly more patients presenting with post hysterectomy vault prolapse (PHVP) in the group of patients who had undergone uterosacral plication (12 out of 73) compared with McCalls culdoplasty (0 out of 70) P = 0.000394. Inpatient stay in the uterosacral plication group was significantly shorter mean 1.8 compared to 3.6 for McCall group (P-Value is <0.00001). There was no significance in the perioperative complications between both groups (P = 0.41).ConclusionsMcCalls is a superior operation to prevent PHVP compared to uterosacral plication with no difference in terms of perioperative complications.

show abstract

Post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse

Cited by 9 publications

References 32 publications

Mesh‐free anterior vaginal wall repair: history or best practice?

Mesh‐free anterior vaginal wall repair: history or best practice?

Sacrospinous ligament fixation with uterine preservation reduces the risk of anatomical recurrence in pelvic organ prolapse

Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About