| Literature DB >> 30386655 |
Alpaslan Caliskan1, Mehmet Ozeren2, Klaus Goeschen3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: High failure and recurrent prolapse remains an important issue for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. The posterior intravaginal slingplasty (PIVS) is a minimally invasive, transperineal technique providing level I support, by creating neo-sacrouterine ligaments using a mesh. In order to reduce the POP recurrence rate, achieve a safer apical support and thereby better functional outcomes, we attached PIVS tape to the sacrospinous ligament bilaterally and compared the anatomical and functional outcomes for our modified technique versus the original PIVS.Entities:
Keywords: cystocele; integral theory; posterior intravaginal slingplasty; rectocele; sacrospinous ligament fixation
Year: 2018 PMID: 30386655 PMCID: PMC6202626 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2018.1685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cent European J Urol ISSN: 2080-4806
Figure 1Level I view from above: SSL – sacrospinous ligament; S – sacrum; CL – cardinal ligament; USL– uterosacral ligament; ATFP – arcus tendineus fasciae pelvis; orange – the IVS tape.
Figure 2A. After transverse 4 cm long incision 1,5 cm below the cervix or hysterectomy scar, the sacrospinous ligaments are freed from adherent tissue by digital blunt dissection. Insertion of two 2-0 prolene sutures through the ligament using a special designed sacrofix instrument on both sides. B. One of the two prolene sutures is brought through the middle of the tape leaving a distance of 4 cm for the contralateral prolene suture. C. A channel around the cervix from the posterior to the anterior incision is created with an overholt forceps on both sides, the posterior two arms are placed around the cervix subepithelially and and pulled back into the posterior incision area. D. The two remaining sacrospinous prolene sutures are connected with the posterior arms of the mesh close to the cervical ring on each side.
Figure 3Normal physiological vaginal axis appears at the end of procedure.
Patient demographics
| Modified PIVS | Original PIVS | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 291 | n = 77 | ||
| Age (years) | 54 ±11 (28–81) | 51 ±11 (27–84) | <0.05 |
| Parity | 3.6 ±1.7 | 3.4 ±1.9 | 0.59 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 28.1 ±4.4 | 28.1 ±5.3 | 0.94 |
| Patients with menopause | 181 (62%) | 42 (55%) | 0.22 |
| Menopausal duration | 12.4 ±7.6 | 10.5 ±7.4 | 0.14 |
| Previous hysterectomy | 30 (10.3%) | 8 (10.4%) | 1.00 |
| Previous pelvic organ prolapse surgery | 18 (6.2%) | 4 (5.2%) | 1.00 |
| Previous anti-incontinence surgery | 6 (2.1%) | 5 (6.5%) | 0.06 |
| Hospitalization (days) | 2.8 ±1.2 | 3.2 ±0.9 | <0.05 |
| Follow-up (months) | 27.5 ±15.4 (12–65) | 39.8 ±19.8 (12–68) |
Anatomic and functional results at least one year after surgery
| Modified PIVS n = 291 (79%) | p | Original PIVS n = 77 (21%) | p | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anterior wall | Gr. 2–4 cure | 165/190 (87%) | <0.001 | 59/63 (94%) | <0.001 | 0.17 |
| Posterior wall | Gr. 2–4 cure | 268/277 (97%) | <0.001 | 46/49 (94%) | <0.001 | 0.39 |
| Apex | Gr. 2–4 cure | 257/264 (97%) | <0.001 | 44/46 (96%) | <0.001 | 0.62 |
| Stress incontinence | Cure De novo | 202/212 (95.3%) 5/79 (3%) | <0.001 | 60/64 (93.7%) 2/13 (13%) | <0.001 | 1.00 0.3 |
| Urge incontinence | Cure De novo | 85/94 (90%) 10/197 (5%) | <0.001 | 26/35 (74%) 3/42 (7%) | <0.001 | <0.05 0.70 |
| Pelvic pain | Cure De novo | 88/91 (97%) 0/200 (0%) | <0.001 | 20/21 (95%) 0/56 (0%) | <0.001 | 0.56 1.00 |
| Urgency | Cure De novo | 103/116 (89%) 9/175 (5%) | <0.001 | 38/50 (76%) 2/27 (7%) | <0.001 | 0.06 0.64 |
| Nocturia | Cure De novo | 36/57 (63%) 16/234 (7%) | <0.01 | 13/21 (62%) 8/56 (14%) | 0.38 | 1.00 0.10 |
| Frequency | Cure De novo | 106/120 (88%) 7/171 (4%) | <0.001 | 31/44 (71%) 5/33 (15%) | <0.001 | <0.01 <0.05 |
| Stool outlet difficulties | Cure De novo | 50/62 (81%) 6/229 (3%) | <0.001 | 11/11 (100%) 3/66 (5%) | 0.06 | 0.19 0.42 |
| Patient’s satisfaction VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) | 9.4 ±1.7 | 8.5 ±2.6 | <0.001 | |||
| 8–10 | 263 (90%) | 60 (78%) | ||||
| 4–7 | 21 (7.2%) | 11 (14%) | ||||
| 1–3 | 7 (2.4%) | 6 (7.8%) | ||||
| Recommend | 281 (97%) | 70 (91%) | 0.06 | |||
| Re-operation (pelvic organ prolapse surgery) | 13 (4.5%) | 7 (9.1%) | 0.15 | |||
| Re-operation (anti-incontinence surgery) | 9 (3.1%) | 2 (2.6%) | 1.00 | |||
| Quality of life | ≥12 m. | ≥12 m. | ||||
| Much better | 233/291(80%) | 53/77 (69%) | <0.49 | |||
| A little better | 26/291(8.9%) | 9/77(11.6%) | <0.52 | |||
| About the same | 23/291 (7.9%) | 9/77(11.6%) | <0.37 | |||
| A little or much worse | 9/291 (3%) | 6/77 (7.8%) | <0.10 |
Operation frequency
| Modified PIVS (n = 291) | Original PIVS (n = 77) | |
|---|---|---|
| Hysterectomy | – | – |
| Posterior bridge repair | 256 (88%) | 42 (54.5%) |
| Anterior transobturator mesh | 177 (60.9%) | 61 (79.2%) |
| PIVS | 291 (100%) | 77 (100%) |
| Bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation | 291 (100%) | – |
| Transobturator tape | 212 (72.9%) | 64 (83.1%) |
Intraoperative, early postoperative and postoperative complications
| Intraoperative & early postoperative n (%) | Postoperative ≥1 year n (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Modified PIVS | Original PIVS | Modified PIVS | Original PIVS | ||
| Bladder injury | 8 (2.7%) | 2 (2.6%) | |||
| Rectal injury | 3 (1%) | – | |||
| Blood transfusion | 1 (0.3%) | – | |||
| Hematoma | 1 (0.3%) | – | |||
| Wound infection | 1 (0.3%) | – | |||
| Mesh erosion | 5 (1.7%) | 3 (3.9%) | |||
| Re-operation (pelvic organ prolapse surgery) | 14 (4.8%) | 6 (7.8%) | |||
| Re-operation (anti-incontinence surgery) | 9 (3%) | 2 (2.6%) | |||
Figure 4Preop and postop images of grade 4 prolapse (enteroptosis: complete protrusion of all pelvic organs as well as intestine and mesenterium).