Site-Specific Rectocele Repair Compared With Standard Posterior Colporrhaphy
ABSTRACT To compare the anatomic and functional outcomes of site-specific rectocele repair and standard posterior colporrhaphy.
We reviewed charts of all patients who underwent repair of advanced posterior vaginal prolapse in our institution between July 1998 and June 2002 with at least 1 year of follow-up.
This study comprised 124 consecutive patients following site-specific rectocele repair and 183 consecutive patients following standard posterior colporrhaphy without levator ani plication. Baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, parity, previous pelvic surgeries, and preoperative prolapse were not significantly different between the 2 study groups. Recurrence of rectocele beyond the midvaginal plane (33% versus 14%, P = .001) and beyond the hymenal ring (11% versus 4%, P = .02), recurrence of a symptomatic bulge (11% versus 4%, P = .02), and postoperative Bp point (-2.2 versus -2.7 cm, P = .001) were significantly higher after the site-specific rectocele repair. Rates of postoperative dyspareunia (16% versus 17%), constipation (37% versus 34%), and fecal incontinence (19% versus 18%) were not significantly different between the 2 study groups.
Site-specific rectocele repair is associated with higher anatomic recurrence rates and similar rates of dyspareunia and bowel symptoms than standard posterior colporrhaphy.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central
Article: Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Quality of life is adversely affected by pelvic organ prolapse, the prevalence of which is increasing because of the persistently growing older population. Today, the tension-free vaginal mesh kit has grown in popularity owing to its comparable cure rate to traditional reconstructive surgery and the feasibility of an early return to normal life. However, significant debate remains over the long-term cure rate and the safety of tension-free vaginal mesh in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends obtaining informed consent about the safety and cure rate when the patient chooses surgery using the tension-free vaginal mesh kit or meshes before surgery. The goal of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse is the restoration of anatomic defects. This review article provides an overview of basic surgical techniques and the results, advantages, and disadvantages of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.Korean journal of urology 11/2014; 55(11):693-702. DOI:10.4111/kju.2014.55.11.693
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a major health issue with a lifetime risk of undergoing at least one surgical intervention estimated at close to 10%. In the 1990s, the risk of reoperation after primary standard vaginal procedure was estimated to be as high as 30% to 50%. In order to reduce the risk of relapse, gynecological surgeons started to use mesh implants in pelvic organ reconstructive surgery with the emergence of new complications. Recent studies have nevertheless shown that the risk of POP recurrence requiring reoperation is lower than previously estimated, being closer to 10% rather than 30%. The development of mesh surgery - actively promoted by the marketing industry - was tremendous during the past decade, and preceded any studies supporting its benefit for our patients. Randomized trials comparing the use of mesh to native tissue repair in POP surgery have now shown better anatomical but similar functional outcomes, and meshes are associated with more complications, in particular for transvaginal mesh implants. POP is not a life-threatening condition, but a functional problem that impairs quality of life for women. The old adage "primum non nocere" is particularly appropriate when dealing with this condition which requires no treatment when asymptomatic. It is currently admitted that a certain degree of POP is physiological with aging when situated above the landmark of the hymen. Treatment should be individualized and the use of mesh needs to be selective and appropriate. Mesh implants are probably an important tool in pelvic reconstructive surgery, but the ideal implant has yet to be found. The indications for its use still require caution and discernment. This review explores the reasons behind the introduction of mesh augmentation in POP surgery, and aims to clarify the risks, benefits, and the recognized indications for its use.International Journal of Women's Health 01/2015; 7:331-43. DOI:10.2147/IJWH.S71236
05/2012, Degree: MD, PhD, Supervisor: Professor M.E.Vierhout