Management of recurrent vault prolapse.
ABSTRACT In the ageing female population, recurrent vaginal vault prolapse is a significant healthcare burden. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal management strategy for recurrent vault prolapse. This paper aims to discuss treatment modalities available for recurrent vault prolapse. A literature search and analysis was performed using Medline, PubMed, Cochrane database, current texts and references from relevant articles. We found inconclusive evidence supporting conservative, mechanical and some surgical options for treating recurrent vault prolapse; including iliococcygeal fixation, McCall culdoplasty, and infracoccygeal sacropexy. Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF), sacrocolpopexy, mesh implants and colpocleisis are shown to have good outcomes in Level II studies. Nevertheless, the first two are associated with haemorrhage, dyspareunia and scarring whilst colpocleisis is limited to selected patients. More well-designed studies are required for recurrent vault prolapse. Current evidence suggests SSLF, and sacrocolpopexy are alternative surgical options to colpocleisis in treating recurrent vault prolapse. Randomised trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of trocar-guided mesh kits.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Prolapse of a sigmoid neovagina, created in patients with congenital vaginal aplasia, is rare. In correcting this condition, preservation of coital function and restoration of the vaginal axis should be of primary interest. A 34-year-old woman with vaginal agenesis underwent vaginoplasty using sigmoid colon. Almost 6 years after the initial operation, she started complaining of a bearing-down sensation and an increase in vaginal discharge. She underwent 2 open surgeries and one vaginal surgery to treat the prolapse with no success. She came to our service and at vaginal examination the neovagina protruded approximately 5 cm beyond the hymen. The prolapse was treated successfully using a laparoscopic approach to suspend the neovagina to the sacral promontory (laparoscopic promontofixation). Prolapse of an artificially created vagina is a rare occurrence, without a standard treatment. Laparoscopy may be an alternative approach to restore the neovagina without compromising its function.Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology 03/2012; 19(2):176-82. DOI:10.1016/j.jmig.2011.12.012 · 1.58 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Genital prolapse remains a complex pathological condition. Physiopathology remains poorly understood, aetiology is multi-factorial, surgery is not always satisfying, as the rate of relapse cannot be overlooked. More over a good anatomical result will not always guarantee functional satisfaction. The aim of our study is to have a better understanding of the involvement of uterine ligaments in pelvic statics via 3D simulation. Simulation of pelvic mobility is performed with a validated numerical model in a normal situation (standing up to lying down) or induced pathological ones where parts of the constitutive elements of the model are virtually "cut" independently. Displacements are then discussed. Numerical results have been compared with dynamic MRI for two volunteers. Dynamic sequences had 90 images, and 180 simulations have been validated. Results are coherent with clinical data and the literature, thus validating our mechanical approach. Uterine ligaments are involved in pelvic statics, but their lesions are not sufficient to generate a genital prolapse. Round ligaments play a part in uterine orientation; the utero-sacral ligaments support the uterus when standing up. Pelvic normal and pathological mobility study via modelling and 3D simulation is a new strategy in understanding the complex multifactorial physiopathology of genital prolapse. This approach must be validated in a larger series of patients. Nevertheless, pelvic ligaments seem to play an important role in statics, especially, in agreement with a literature survey, utero-sacral ligaments in a standing position.International Urogynecology Journal 08/2013; 24(12). DOI:10.1007/s00192-013-2135-6 · 2.16 Impact Factor