Bernard T Haylen1, Sushen Naidoo2, Stephen J Kerr3, Chin H Yong2, Warwick Birrell4. 1. St. Vincent's Clinic, Suite 904, 438 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, 2010, NSW, Australia. bernard@haylen.co. 2. St. Vincent's Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia. 3. Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia. 4. Mater Hospital, North Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Traditionally, it has been believed that posterior vaginal compartment prolapse was largely due to defects in the rectovaginal fascia, with surgical repairs concentrating on addressing this defect. We aimed to determine the relative size of defects at the different vaginal levels (I-III) following a large number of posterior vaginal compartment repairs (PRs) to determine whether this traditional viewpoint is still appropriate. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 300 consecutive PRs, mostly following prior or concomitant hysterectomy, two sets of markers of posterior compartment prolapse were used to measure anatomical defects at levels I-III: (i) from Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system points C, Ap, Bp, and genital hiatus (GH), and from Posterior Repair Quantification (PR-Q) perineal gap (PG), posterior vaginal-vault descent (PVVD), midvaginal laxity (MVL)-vault undisplaced, and rectovaginal fascial laxity (RVFL). RESULTS: The largest defects were found at level I (PVVD: mean 6.0 cm; point C, mean minus 0.9 cm), and level III (PG, mean 2.9 cm; GH, mean 3.7 cm). Level II defects (MVL-vault undisplaced, mean 1.3 cm; RVFL, mean 1.1 cm; points Ap, Bp, both mean 1.0 cm) were relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the defects found at surgery for posterior vaginal compartment prolapse were more frequent at the vaginal vault (level I) and vaginal introitus (level III) than at midvagina (level II). These findings should have implications for surgical planning.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Traditionally, it has been believed that posterior vaginal compartment prolapse was largely due to defects in the rectovaginal fascia, with surgical repairs concentrating on addressing this defect. We aimed to determine the relative size of defects at the different vaginal levels (I-III) following a large number of posterior vaginal compartment repairs (PRs) to determine whether this traditional viewpoint is still appropriate. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 300 consecutive PRs, mostly following prior or concomitant hysterectomy, two sets of markers of posterior compartment prolapse were used to measure anatomical defects at levels I-III: (i) from Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system points C, Ap, Bp, and genital hiatus (GH), and from Posterior Repair Quantification (PR-Q) perineal gap (PG), posterior vaginal-vault descent (PVVD), midvaginal laxity (MVL)-vault undisplaced, and rectovaginal fascial laxity (RVFL). RESULTS: The largest defects were found at level I (PVVD: mean 6.0 cm; point C, mean minus 0.9 cm), and level III (PG, mean 2.9 cm; GH, mean 3.7 cm). Level II defects (MVL-vault undisplaced, mean 1.3 cm; RVFL, mean 1.1 cm; points Ap, Bp, both mean 1.0 cm) were relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the defects found at surgery for posterior vaginal compartment prolapse were more frequent at the vaginal vault (level I) and vaginal introitus (level III) than at midvagina (level II). These findings should have implications for surgical planning.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anatomical defects; Key anatomical indicators (KAI); Pelvic organ prolapse; Posterior Repair Quantification (PR-Q); Posterior vaginal compartment; Prolapse surgery
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Chiara Ghetti; W Thomas Gregory; S Renee Edwards; Lesley N Otto; Amanda L Clark Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2005-01-20
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Christopher F Maher; Matthew D Barber; Sérgio Camargo; Vani Dandolu; Alex Digesu; Howard B Goldman; Martin Huser; Alfredo L Milani; Paul A Moran; Gabriel N Schaer; Mariëlla I J Withagen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Christopher F Maher; Matthew D Barber; Sérgio Camargo; Vani Dandolu; Alex Digesu; Howard B Goldman; Martin Huser; Alfredo L Milani; Paul A Moran; Gabriel N Schaer; Mariëlla I J Withagen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.894