International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1047–1052 | Cite as

Prolapse and sexual function 8 years after neovagina according to Shears: a study of 43 cases with Mayer–von Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome

  • Annette KuhnEmail author
  • Corinne Neukomm
  • Ekkehard F. Dreher
  • Jeannine Imobersteg
  • Michael D. Mueller
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

To investigate sexual and anatomical outcome after Shears neovagina in patients with Mayer–von Rokitansky–Kuster–Hauser syndrome (MRKH).


Forty-three consecutive patients with MRKH syndrome underwent surgery creating a neovagina according to Shears. Follow-up was 8 years. Sexual function was assessed using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as patient reported outcome; anatomical results were assessed measuring anterior, posterior and apical prolapse using the ICS Pelvic Organ Prolapse Score (ICS-POP Score). Pelvic floor contraction was measured applying the Oxford grading system.


Thirty-seven of the patients were regularly sexually active and filled in the FSFI; mean total FSFI was 27.2 (range 24–28). No significant prolapse of the neovagina was noted, 11 patients had a grade I cystocele, rectocele or apical descent that was asymptomatic. Oxford grading of the pelvic floor contraction was 4 in median (range 2–5).


The neovagina according to Shears is a valuable surgical option with good sexual and anatomical outcome 8 years after therapy.


Mayer–von Rokitansky–Kuster–Hauser syndrome Neovagina Sexual function Prolapse Anatomical outcome 


Conflicts of interest


Source of financial support

This study was not financially supported, but is investigator-driven.


  1. 1.
    Fotopoulou C, Sehouli J, Gehrmann N, Schoenborn I, Lichtenegger W (2010) Functional and anatomic results of amnion vaginoplasty in young women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 94:317–323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griffin J, Edwards C, Madden J, Harrod M, Wilson J (1976) Congenital absence of the vagina, Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Ann Intern Med 85:224–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ulrich U, Schrickel J, Dorn C, Richter O, Lewalter T, Lüderitz B, Rhiem K (2004) Mayer-von-Rokitansky-Küster Hauser syndrome in association of hitherto undescribed variant of the Holt-Oram syndrome with an aorto-pulmonal window. Hum Reprod 19:1201–1203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giusti S, Fruzzetti E, Perinin D, Fruzzetti F, Giusti P, Bartolozzi C (2011) Diagnosis of a variant of Myer-Rokitansky-Kuster Hauser syndrome: useful MRI findings. Abdom Imaging 36:753–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shears BH (1960) Congenital atresia of the vagina: a technique for tunnelling in the space between bladder and rectum and construction of a new vagina by a modified Wharton technique. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 67:24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walch K, Kowarik E, Leithner K, Schätz T, Dörfler D, Wenzl R (2011) Functional and anatomical results after creation of a neovagina according to Wharton-Shears George in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome—long-term follow-up. Fertil Steril 96(2):492–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):191–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith ARB (2002) Standardisation of terminology Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1006):10–11Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    BØ K, Finckenhagen HB (2001) Vaginal palpation of pelvic floor muscle strength: inter-test reproducibility and comparison between palpation and vaginal squeeze pressure. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80(10):883–887PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fedele L, Frontino G, Motta F, Peruzzi E (2011) Davydov’s procedure for the treatment of neovaginal prolapse in Rokitansky syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 18(4):503–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edmonds DK (2003) Congenital malformations of the genital tract and their management. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 17:19–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaffer J, Fabricant C, Carr BR (2002) Vaginal vault prolapsed after surgical and nonsurgical treatment of mullerian agenesis. Obstet Gynecol 99:947–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Swift S, Woodman PL, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D (1980) Pelvic organ support study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definitions and epidemiologic conditions of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(3):795–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hage JJ (1999) Vaginoplasty in male-to-female transsexuals by inversion of penile and scrotal skin. In: Ehrlich RM, Alter GJ (eds) Reconstructive and plastic surgery of the external genitalia. Saunders , Philadelphia, pp 294–300Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Belgrano E, Lissiani A (1999) La femilizzazione dei genital esterni e la colazione della neovagina. In: Belgrano E Fabris B and Trombetta C (eds) Il transsessualismo. Editrice Kurtis, Milan, pp 87–97Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Alberton A, Santi F (1972) Formation of a neovagina by coitus. Obstet Gynecol 40:763PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deniz N, Perk H, Serel T (2002) Urethral coitus and urinary incontinence in a case of Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome: an alternative surgical procedure. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 103:95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams EA (1964) Congenital absence of the vagina: a simple operation for relief. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 71:511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McIndoe AH, Banister JB (1938) An operation for the cure of congenital absence of the vagina. J Obstet Gynecol Br Commonw 45:490–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davydoff SN (1969) Colpopoesis from the peritoneum of the uterorectal space. Akush Gynecol [Mok] 45:55Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vecchietti G (1965) Neovagina nella syndrome di Rokitanski Kuster Hauser attual. Obstet Ginecol 11:131Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Czsermely T, Halvax L, Sarkany A, Jeges S, Vizer M, Bosza S, Farkas B, Bodis J (2011) Sexual function after modified laparoscopic Vecchietti’s vaginoplasty. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 24:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ng CC, Ham WH (2004) Comparison of effectiveness of vaginal and abdominal routes in treating severe uterovaginal or vault prolapse. Singapore Med J 45(10):475–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Allen L, Lucco KL, Brown CM, Spritzre RF, Kives S (2010) Psychosexual and functional outcomes after creation of a neovagina with laparoscopic Davydoff in patients with vaginal agenesis. Fertil Steril 94:2272–2276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G (2008) The laparoscopic Vecchietti’s modified technique in Rokitansky syndrome: anatomic, functional and sexual long term results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Darai E, Toullalan O, Besse O (2003) Anatomic and functional results of laparoscopic—perineal neovagina construction by sigmoid colpoplasty in women with Rokitansky’s syndrome. Hum Reprod 18:2454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ota H, Tanaka J, Murakami M (2000) Laparoscopic assisted Ruge procedure for the creation of a neovagina. Fertil Steril 73:641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nygard I, Bradley C, Brand D (2004) Pelvic organ prolapse in older women: prevalence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol 104:489–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annette Kuhn
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Corinne Neukomm
    • 1
  • Ekkehard F. Dreher
    • 1
  • Jeannine Imobersteg
    • 1
  • Michael D. Mueller
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gynaecology, FrauenklinikUniversity Hospital and University of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.FrauenklinikUniversity HospitalBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations