Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment (Pe-QA).

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Perineorrhaphy (Pe) has not been subject to a comprehensive perioperative quantitative assessment (QA). We wish to nominate such an assessment (Pe-QA) for any Pe, through testing the QA on the excision of the perineal gap (PG) at the time of posterior repair (PR).
METHODS: At 50 consecutive PRs, the following measurements were taken pre- and postoperatively: (i) perineorrhaphy width (PW) equals PG [1]; (ii) perineorrhaphy depth (PD); (iii) perineal length (PL); (iv) midperineal thickness (MPT); (v) genital hiatus (GH) and (vi) total posterior vaginal length (TPVL). The total vaginal length was also measured. Surgical details deemed appropriate to each repair were recorded.
RESULTS: The overall means and ranges (cm) were: (i) PW 2.9 (1.5-5.5); (ii) PD 1.6 (0.8-2.0); (iii) PL 2.9 (1.5-4.5); (iv) MPT 0.7 (0.4-1.1); (v) GH 3.9 (2.3-6.5); (vi) TPVL 9.2 (6.0-12.5). Excision of PG (100 % cases reducing PW and PD to zero) resulted in a mean 23.6 % increase in total vaginal length over that if the repair was commenced at the hymen, despite a 3.3 % decrease in the TPVL perioperatively. There was a mean 30.8 % reduction in the GH, a mean 27.6 % increase in the PL and a mean 57.1 % increase in the MPT.
CONCLUSIONS: Pe and the anatomical results of such surgery can be subject to quantitative assessment allowing comparison studies between different forms of Pe and possibly other types of perineal surgeries.