D J Jordaan1, A Prollius, H S Cronjé, M Nel. 1. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. do-jo@mweb.co.za
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of the posterior intravaginal slingplasty (IVS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a urogynecology database, 42 patients who had undergone posterior IVS procedures were analyzed. All the selected patients had also had a posterior colporrhaphy (88% with mesh inserted into the rectovaginal space). RESULTS: Intraoperatively, there was one complication, a rectum perforation. All patients were followed-up, with a median of 13 months. Recurrent prolapse, grade 3 or 4, developed in 12 patients (29%) which included ten cystoenteroceles (24%), four rectoenteroceles (10%), and three cases of utero/vault prolapse (7%). Repeat surgery was performed in six patients (14%). For utero/vault prolapse, eight patients presented preoperatively with grades 3 and 4 prolapse. On follow-up, three patients had utero/vault prolapse, one of whom did not have utero/vault prolapse on presentation. Therefore, of the eight patients presenting with utero/vault prolapse, only two had repeat prolapse on follow-up, which reflected an improvement of 75%. CONCLUSION: The posterior IVS delivered satisfactory results for vault and posterior compartment prolapse, with a 75% improvement in vault prolapse. It was not possible, however, to separate the effect of posterior IVS and posterior colporrhaphy on the prevention of recurrent prolapse nor on the improvement of difficulty in defecation. Due to the utilization of the now-abandoned vaginal anterior colposuspension procedure for the treatment of anterior compartment prolapse, no conclusions regarding the impact of the posterior IVS on the anterior compartment can be made.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of the posterior intravaginal slingplasty (IVS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a urogynecology database, 42 patients who had undergone posterior IVS procedures were analyzed. All the selected patients had also had a posterior colporrhaphy (88% with mesh inserted into the rectovaginal space). RESULTS: Intraoperatively, there was one complication, a rectum perforation. All patients were followed-up, with a median of 13 months. Recurrent prolapse, grade 3 or 4, developed in 12 patients (29%) which included ten cystoenteroceles (24%), four rectoenteroceles (10%), and three cases of utero/vault prolapse (7%). Repeat surgery was performed in six patients (14%). For utero/vault prolapse, eight patients presented preoperatively with grades 3 and 4 prolapse. On follow-up, three patients had utero/vault prolapse, one of whom did not have utero/vault prolapse on presentation. Therefore, of the eight patients presenting with utero/vault prolapse, only two had repeat prolapse on follow-up, which reflected an improvement of 75%. CONCLUSION: The posterior IVS delivered satisfactory results for vault and posterior compartment prolapse, with a 75% improvement in vault prolapse. It was not possible, however, to separate the effect of posterior IVS and posterior colporrhaphy on the prevention of recurrent prolapse nor on the improvement of difficulty in defecation. Due to the utilization of the now-abandoned vaginal anterior colposuspension procedure for the treatment of anterior compartment prolapse, no conclusions regarding the impact of the posterior IVS on the anterior compartment can be made.
Authors: Viviane Dietz; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; C Huub van der Vaart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2008-12-16