The effectiveness of modified six-corner suspension in patients with paravaginal defect and stress urinary incontinence

Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016)

Aims: The aim was to establish an official interdisciplinary guideline, published and coordinated by the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG). The guideline was developed for use in German-speaking countries. In addition to the Germany Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the guideline has also been approved by the Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (SGGG) and the Austrian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (OEGGG). This is a guideline published and coordinated by the DGGG. The aim is to provide evidence-based recommendations obtained by evaluating the relevant literature for the diagnostic, conservative and surgical treatment of women with female pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress incontinence. Methods: We conducted a systematic review together with a synthesis of data and meta-analyses, where feasible. MEDLINE, Embase, Cinahl, Pedro and the Cochrane Register were searched for relevant articles. Reference lists were hand-searched, as were the abstracts of the Annual Meetings of the International Continence Society and the International Urogynecological Association. We included only abstracts of randomized controlled trials that were presented and discussed in podium sessions. We assessed original data on surgical procedures published since 2008 with a minimum follow-up time of at least 12 months. If the studies included descriptions of perioperative complications, this minimum follow-up period did not apply. Recommendations: The guideline encompasses recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic organ prolapse. Recommendations for anterior, posterior and apical pelvic organ prolapse with or without concomitant stress urinary incontinence, uterine preservation options, and the pros and cons of mesh placements during surgery for pelvic organ prolapse are presented. The recommendations are based on an extensive and systematic review and evaluation of the current literature and include the experiences and specific conditions in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

Four-defect repair in women with symptomatic anterior compartment prolapse: a large cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to collect long-term follow-up data and report on both objective and subjective outcome, including morbidity, reinterventions, and sexual function following four-defect repair (FDR) as surgical correction of symptomatic anterior vaginal wall prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent FDR between 1999 and 2005 were included in this study. We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate anatomical and functional outcome by reviewing medical charts and sending validated questionnaires (Urogenital Distress Inventory and Defecatory Distress Inventory) to all patients. We also sent a self-developed, nonvalidated questionnaire to assess sexual function and inform the patient about reinterventions for pelvic floor dysfunction.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-nine (60 %) of the 381 patients who underwent FDR participated. At a median follow-up of 40 months (range 5-88), 21 % of patients reported bothersome prolapse symptoms, and 11 % reported bothersome SUI. Temporary postoperative urinary retention occurred in 23 %. During follow-up, posterior vaginal wall prolapse was observed in 14 % of patients. Overall surgical reintervention rates were 15 % and 4 % for (all types of) pelvic organ prolapse and SUI, respectively; dyspareunia was reported by 30 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional cure rates of FDR as surgical treatment for anterior vaginal wall prolapse with or without SUI are satisfying. Nevertheless, given the negative side effects of FDR (urinary retention, high reintervention rate for posterior vaginal wall prolapse, high risk of sexual dysfunction), we question the superiority of FDR over standard anterior colporrhaphy in patients with anterior vaginal wall prolapse only.

[Prolapse surgery. With abdominal or vaginal meshes?]

In prolapse surgery several surgical techniques are available. The different open, laparoscopic and vaginal approaches are distinguished by distinct success and relapse rates and operation-specific complications. A safe and optimal therapeutic pelvic floor surgery should be based on the three support levels according to DeLancy and be individually adjusted for every patient. The vaginal approach may be used for all kinds of female genital prolapse and is a comparatively less invasive technique with a short time of convalescence. Apart from stress incontinence there is no need for synthetic meshes in primary approaches and excellent results with low complication and relapse rates can be achieved. An uncritical application of synthetic material is to be avoided in vaginal repair at all times. Abdominal surgical techniques, both open and laparoscopic, present their strengths in the therapeutic approach to level 1 defects or stress incontinence. They provide excellent functional and anatomical corrections and low relapse rates. Abdominally inserted meshes have lower complication rates than vaginal ones.

[Vaginal pelvic repair. Always with mesh or not?]

Several surgical methods are possible when aiming at reconstruction of pelvic organ prolapse in women, and the experienced surgeon implements the knowledge gained from open, laparoscopic, and vaginal techniques. These feature different rates of success and relapse as well as different complication risks. Because of the accumulating morbidity of aging patients, there is a search for a safe minimally invasive technique. With the advent of synthetic meshes, surgeons have used them frequently and often uncritically for reconstruction of the female pelvic floor. In these cases the vaginal approach is preferred as opposed to alternative techniques, as it is less invasive and allows for better convalescence. Furthermore, this approach leads to low complication and relapse rates even when synthetic meshes are omitted.

Differences in urodynamic study, perineal sonography and treatment outcome according to urethrovesical junction hypermobility in stress urinary incontinence

AIMS

To evaluate the differences in urodynamic study (UDS) and the perineal ultrasonography parameters between stress urinary incontinence (SUI) patients with or without urethrovesical junction (UVJ) hypermobility. Treatment outcomes following a retropubic urethropexy were also compared.

METHODS

The records of 164 SUI patients (<or=stage II), treated with retropubic urethropexy at our department between January 2001 and February 2004 were reviewed. The patients were categorized into a hypermobility group when the measured Q-tip angle was >or=30, and a non-hypermobility group when <30. All patients underwent UDS and perineal ultrasonography (US) preoperatively. A Burch urethropexy was performed regardless of the Q-tip result. All patients were reevaluated at 1 month and 3 months, postoperatively, and every 3 months thereafter.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients (60%) had an accompanying UVJ hypermobility and 66 (40%) did not. No significant differences regarding age, parity, body mass index (BMI), menopausal status, hormone replacement status, history of previous gynecologic surgery, or other medico-surgical illness were noted. UDS parameters demonstrated a significant difference between the groups, but were in the normal range. The significant difference noted in the perineal US was the bladder neck descent (BND). Following retropubic urethropexy, the success rates after 1 year were 94% and 91% for the hypermobility group and the non-hypermobility group, respectively, showing no statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The success rates of Burch urethropexy in the two groups were similar. This result suggests that either the Q-tip is an inaccurate method of evaluating UVJ hypermobility or the presence of UVJ hypermobility does not negatively affect the treatment outcome of a Burch urethropexy.