Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of two laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty techniques in patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to compare the technical feasibility and long-term anatomical and functional outcomes of a novel laparoscopic vaginoplasty using single peritoneal flap (SPF) and Davydov’s laparoscopic technique in patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser (MRKH) syndrome.

Methods

From September 2004 to September 2013, a comparative study was conducted of 98 patients with MRKH syndrome who underwent either laparoscopic vaginoplasty using SPF (SPF group, 62 cases) or Davydov’s laparoscopic technique (Davydov group, 36 cases) in a university-based tertiary care hospital. Intraoperative and postoperative parameters and anatomical examination findings of the two groups were compared. Functional results were assessed using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI).

Results

All surgical procedures were performed successfully, with no intraoperative complications in either group. Patients in the SPF group had a significantly shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss than patients in the Davydov group. The postoperative course was identical for all patients in the two groups. The mean length and width of the neovagina in the two groups at hospital discharge, the 6-month follow-up, and the 12-month follow-up did not differ significantly. There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to the postoperative FSFI scores at 12 months after surgery.

Conclusions

Although the long-term anatomical and functional outcomes of the two laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty techniques are similar, laparoscopic vaginoplasty using SPF, which has many advantages and is easily performed by the gynecologist, is a more feasible and effective approach to creating a neovagina in patients with MRKH syndrome.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hauser GA, Schreiner WE (1961) Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuester syndrome. Rudimentary solid bipartite uterus with solid vagina. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 91:381–384

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rock JA, Azziz R (1987) Genital anomalies in childhood. Clin Obstet Gynecol 30(3):682–696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Golan A, Langer R, Bukovsky I, Caspi E (1989) Congenital anomalies of the mullerian system. Fertil Steril 51(5):747–755

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Edmonds DK (2000) Congenital malformations of the genital tract. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 27(1):49–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Soong YK, Chang FH, Lai YM, Lee CL, Chou HH (1996) Results of modified laparoscopically assisted neovaginoplasty in 18 patients with congenital absence of vagina. Hum Reprod 11(1):200–203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fedele L, Frontino G, Restelli E, Ciappina N, Motta F, Bianchi S (2010) Creation of a neovagina by Davydov’s laparoscopic modified technique in patients with Rokitansky syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(1):33.e1–33.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.08.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carrard C, Chevret-Measson M, Lunel A, Raudrant D (2012) Sexuality after sigmoid vaginoplasty in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 97(3):691–696. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G, Fontana E, Restelli E, Bruni V (2008) The laparoscopic Vecchietti’s modified technique in Rokitansky syndrome: anatomic, functional, and sexual long-term results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198(4):377.e1–377.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.10.807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cao L, Wang Y, Li Y, Xu H (2013) Prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty with laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty for treating congenital vaginal agenesis. Int Urogynecol J 24(7):1173–1179. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1991-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bianchi S, Frontino G, Ciappina N, Restelli E, Fedele L (2011) Creation of a neovagina in Rokitansky syndrome: comparison between two laparoscopic techniques. Fertil Steril 95(3):1098–1100.e3. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rosen R, Brown C, Heiman J, Leiblum S, Meston C, Shabsigh R, Ferguson D, D’Agostino R Jr (2000) The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): a multidimensional self-report instrument for the assessment of female sexual function. J Sex Marital Ther 26(2):191–208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Herman CJ, Willesman WN, Mastboom JL, Vooijs GP (1982) Artificial vaginas: possible sources of epithelialization. Hum Pathol 13(12):1100–1105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Laufer MR (2002) Congenital absence of the vagina: in search of the perfect solution. When, and by what technique, should a vagina be created? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 14(5):441–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hensle TW, Chang DT (1999) Vaginal reconstruction. Urol Clin N Am 26(1):39–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Frank R (1938) The formation of an artificial vagina without operation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 35:1053

    Google Scholar 

  16. Walker JL, Piedmonte MR, Spirtos NM, Eisenkop SM, Schlaerth JB, Mannel RS, Spiegel G, Barakat R, Pearl ML, Sharma SK (2009) Laparoscopy compared with laparotomy for comprehensive surgical staging of uterine cancer: gynecologic oncology group study LAP2. J Clin Oncol 27(32):5331–5336. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3248

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Karateke A, Haliloglu B, Parlak O, Cam C, Coksuer H (2010) Intestinal vaginoplasty: seven years’ experience of a tertiary center. Fertil Steril 94(6):2312–2315. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.01.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhou JH, Sun J, Yang CB, Xie ZW, Shao WQ, Jin HM (2010) Long-term outcomes of transvestibular vaginoplasty with pelvic peritoneum in 182 patients with Rokitansky’s syndrome. Fertil Steril 94(6):2281–2285. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Templeman CL, Hertweck SP, Levine RL, Reich H (2000) Use of laparoscopically mobilized peritoneum in the creation of a neovagina. Fertil Steril 74(3):589–592

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rothman D (1972) The use of peritoneum in the construction of a vagina. Obstet Gynecol 40(6):835–838

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Giannesi A, Marchiole P, Benchaib M, Chevret-Measson M, Mathevet P, Dargent D (2005) Sexuality after laparoscopic Davydov in patients affected by congenital complete vaginal agenesis associated with uterine agenesis or hypoplasia. Hum Reprod 20(10):2954–2957

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu X, Liu M, Hua K, Li B, Guo SW (2009) Sexuality after Laparoscopic Peritoneal Vaginoplasty in Women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(6):720–729. doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2009.07.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dargent D, Marchiole P, Giannesi A, Benchaib M, Chevret-Measson M, Mathevet P (2004) Laparoscopic Davydov or laparoscopic transposition of the peritoneal colpopoiesis described by Davydov for the treatment of congenital vaginal agenesis: the technique and its evolution. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 32(12):1023–1030

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Conflict of interest

None.

Author’s participation

X. Zhao: project development, manuscript writing; R. Wang: data collection; Y. Wang: data collection; L. Li: management, data analysis; H. Zhang: data collection; S. Kang: project development, manuscript editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, 12 Jiankang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050011, People’s Republic of China

    Xiwa Zhao, Ruixue Wang, Yanxiu Wang, Li Li, Haibo Zhang & Shan Kang

Authors
  1. Xiwa Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruixue Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yanxiu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Li Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Haibo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shan Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shan Kang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, X., Wang, R., Wang, Y. et al. Comparison of two laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty techniques in patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Int Urogynecol J 26, 1201–1207 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2675-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2675-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation