Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The value of vaginal packing in pelvic floor surgery: a randomised double-blind study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of vaginal packing following pelvic floor surgery with regard to post-operative pain, bleeding and infection. This was a double-blind randomised study of women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy and/or pelvic floor repair at a tertiary urogynaecology unit.

Methods

The primary outcome of day 1 post-operative pain was assessed using the short-form McGill Pain score. Secondary outcomes were haematological and infective morbidity, evaluated using changes in full blood count, and cultures of midstream urine and high vaginal swabs. A transvaginal ultrasound scan to exclude pelvic haematoma was performed at 6 weeks in all women who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with or without a pelvic floor repair.

Results

In total, 190 women were recruited: mean age 58.3 years (27–91 years), mean body mass index 27.4 kg/m2 and median parity 3. Women were randomised into the ‘pack’ (n = 86) and ‘no pack’ (n = 87) arms with no demographic differences between the groups. No statistically significant differences in the post-operative pain scores or secondary outcome measures were demonstrated. Incidence of haematoma formation (14.8 % no pack, 7.3 % pack, p = 0.204) was not statistically significant. There were three clinically significant complications in the no pack group and none in the pack group.

Conclusions

This is the first study to examine pain in association with post-operative vaginal packing. There is no evidence to suggest that packing increases pain scores or post-operative morbidity. A trend towards increased haematoma and significant complications was seen in the no pack group. As vaginal packing does no harm and may be of some benefit it may be argued that packing should be recommended as routine clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S (1997) A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:1374–1379

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver R (2009) Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(10):1157–1161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89(4):501–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sutton C (1997) Hysterectomy: a historical perspective. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 11(1):1–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Senn N (1895) The early history of vaginal hysterectomy. JAMA XXV(12):476–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kalogirou D, Antoniou G, Karakitsos P, Zioris C, Salampasis C (1996) Comparison of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Study of complications. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 23(3):161–167

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Conturso R, Radaelli L, Turtulici P, Alegente G, De Lalla F (1989) Prophylactic mezlocillin in vaginal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized study. J Chemother 1(4 Suppl):1033–1034

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Engel K, Schmidt W, Sonntag HG, Kees F (1989) Comparative clinical and pharmacokinetic aspects of cefotetan versus cefoxitin plus metronidazole in vaginal hysterectomy. J Chemother 1(4 Suppl):1053–1056

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bolling DR Jr, Plunkett GD (1973) Prophylactic antibiotics for vaginal hysterectomies. Obstet Gynecol 41(5):689–692

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kauer FM, Wijma J, Manson WL (1990) Vaginal hysterectomy: cefuroxime, metronidazole or both? Pharm Weekbl Sci 12(6A):284–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris WJ (1995) Early complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 50:795–805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schneider J, Benito R (1988) Extensive gynecologic surgical procedures upon patients more than 75 years of age. Surg Gynecol Obstet 167:497–500

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kjølhede P, Halili S, Löfgren M (2011) Vaginal cleansing and postoperative infectious morbidity in vaginal hysterectomy. A register study from the Swedish National Register for Gynecological Surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 90(1):63–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Batista CS, Osako T, Clemente EM, Batista FC, Osako MT (2012) Observational evaluation of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative characteristics in 117 Brazilian women without uterine prolapse undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. Int J Womens Health 4:505–510

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dane C, Dane B, Cetin A, Yayla M (2009) Sonographically diagnosed vault hematomas following vaginal hysterectomy and its correlation with postoperative morbidity. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2009:91708

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thomson AJ, Farquharson RG (2000) Vault haematoma and febrile morbidity after vaginal hysterectomy. Hosp Med 61(8):535–538

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Moustafa M, Elgonaid WE, Massouh H, Beynon WG (2008) Evaluation of closure versus non-closure of vaginal vault after vaginal hysterectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol 28(8):791–794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wood C, Maher P, Hill D (1997) Bleeding associated with vaginal hysterectomy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 37(4):457–461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Daly LE, Bourke GJ (2000) Interpretation and uses of medical statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York

  20. Melzack R (1987) The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 30(2):191–197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Strand LI, Ljunggren AE, Bogen B, Ask T, Johnsen TB (2008) The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire as an outcome measure: test-retest reliability and responsiveness to change. Eur J Pain 12(7):917–925

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tincello DG (1998) Ultrasound detection of vault haematoma following vaginal hysterectomy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105(12):1336–1337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dubin MR, Pletcher SD (2009) Postoperative packing after septoplasty: is it necessary? Otolaryngol Clin North Am 42(2):279–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bajaj Y, Kanatas AN, Carr S, Sethi N, Kelly G (2009) Is nasal packing really required after septoplasty? Int J Clin Pract 63(5):757–759

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guyuron B (1989) Is packing after septorhinoplasty necessary? A randomized study. Plast Reconstr Surg 84(1):41–44, discussion 45–6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bugten V, Nordgård S, Skogvoll E, Steinsvåg S (2006) Effects of nonabsorbable packing in middle meatus after sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 116(1):83–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Glavind K, Mørup L, Madsen H, Glavind J (2007) A prospective, randomised, controlled trial comparing 3 hour and 24 hour postoperative removal of bladder catheter and vaginal pack following vaginal prolapse surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86(9):1122–1125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Mr. John Bidmead, Dr. Marcus Naef, Ms. Salma Ayis, Dr. Maria Grazia Matarazzo.

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

G. Thiagamoorthy: Has received funding from Astellas to attend conferences. Has received an IUGA FRN grant to set up a multicentre research project. A. Khalil: None. L. Cardozo: During the last year received funding for research, lecturing and/or advice/consultancies from Allergan, Astellas, Ethicon, Merck, Pfizer & Teva. S. Srikrishna: None. D. Robinson: During the last year received funding for research, lecturing and/or advice/consultancies from Allergan, Astellas, Ferring & Pfizer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College Hospital, London, SE5 9RS, UK

    G. Thiagamoorthy, L. Cardozo, S. Srikrishna, G. Leslie & D. Robinson

  2. St. George’s Hospital, London, SW17 0QT, UK

    A. Khalil

  3. Urogynaecology Department, King’s College Hospital, London, SE5 9RS, UK

    G. Thiagamoorthy

Authors
  1. G. Thiagamoorthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Khalil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Cardozo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Srikrishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Leslie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. D. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Thiagamoorthy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thiagamoorthy, G., Khalil, A., Cardozo, L. et al. The value of vaginal packing in pelvic floor surgery: a randomised double-blind study. Int Urogynecol J 25, 585–591 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2264-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2264-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation