Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 1193–1201 | Cite as

The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes

  • Sissel Hegdahl OversandEmail author
  • Anne C. Staff
  • Ellen Borstad
  • Rune Svenningsen
Original Article
  • 313 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Classical native-tissue techniques for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repairs, such as the Manchester procedure (MP), have been revitalized because of vaginal mesh complications. However, there are conflicting opinions regarding sufficient apical (mid-compartment) support by the MP and concerns about the risk of dyspareunia. The aims of this study were therefore to investigate anatomical and patient-reported outcomes 1 year after MP.

Methods

Prospective cohort study of 153 females undergoing an MP for anterior compartment POP between October 2014 and June 2016. Pre- and 1-year postoperative evaluations included POP-Q measurements and the questionnaires Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form 20 (PFDI-20) and POP/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12).

Results

At 1 year, 97% (148/153) attended the follow-up. Significant anatomical improvements (p < 0.01) were obtained in all compartments. Mean Ba was −1.1 (± 1.4), mean C −5.9 (± 1.7) and mean D −7.0 (± 1.2) at follow-up. Point C ≤ −5 was present in 81.1%. POP-Q stage 0–1 was obtained in 99.3% in the mid-compartment (C < −1), but only in 48.6% in the anterior compartment (Ba < −1). A significant reduction in symptom scores was obtained for PFDI-20 (p < 0.01) and PISQ-12 (p = 0.01). No significant changes were seen in dyspareunia rates (q.5, PISQ-12), but 5.6% reported de novo dyspareunia. Concerning POP symptoms, 96.0% reported being cured or significantly improved.

Conclusions

The Manchester procedure provides adequate apical support, albeit inferior anatomical anterior compartment results, and 96.0% reported being subjectively cured or substantially better at 1-year follow-up, with no significant change in dyspareunia.

Keywords

Dyspareunia Gynecologic surgical procedures Pelvic organ prolapse Recurrence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Associate Prof. Jon Michael Gran, Biostatistician at OUS and UiO, for support with statistical analyses.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    White GR. Cystocele—a radical cure by suturing lateral sulci of vagina to white line of pelvic fascia. J Amer Med Assoc. 1909;53:1707–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haya N, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, de Tayrac R, Dietz V, Guldberg R, et al. Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):755 e751–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, et al. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):981–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a8a5e4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Porena M, Mearini L, Costantini E. Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(11):626–33.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    FDA. FDA strengthens requirements for surgical mesh for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to address safety risks. 2016.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Debodinance P, Fatton B, Lucot JP. Should a hysterectomy be carried at the same time as surgery for a prolapse by vaginal route? Prog Urol. 2009;19(13):1060–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2009.09.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalogirou D, Antoniou G, Karakitsos P, Kalogirou O. Comparison of surgical and postoperative complications of vaginal hysterectomy and Manchester procedure. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1996;17(4):278–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ulrich D, Dwyer P, Rosamilia A, Lim Y, Lee J. The effect of vaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery on sexual function. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(4):316–21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22569.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oversand SH, Staff AC, Spydslaug AE, Svenningsen R, Borstad E. Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):81–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2166-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tolstrup CK, Lose G, Klarskov N. The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):33–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3100-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunivan GC, Lyons KE, Jeppson PC, Ninivaggio CS, Komesu YM, Alba FM, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse stage and the relationship to genital hiatus and perineal body measurements. Female Pelvic Med Re. 2016;22(6):497–500.  https://doi.org/10.1097/Spv.0000000000000323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fothergill WE. A clinical lecture on the precise relationship of cystocele, prolapse and rectocelle, and the operations for their relief. Brit Med J. 1912;1912:817–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;  https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22922.
  16. 16.
    Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rogers RG, Coates KW, Kammerer-Doak D, Khalsa S, Qualls C. A short form of the pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(3):164–8; discussion 168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-003-1063-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teig CJ, Grotle M, Bond MJ, Prinsen CA, Engh MA, Cvancarova MS, et al. Norwegian translation, and validation, of the pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7). Int Urogynecol J. 2017;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3209-z.
  19. 19.
    Teleman P, Stenzelius K, Iorizzo L, Jakobsson U. Validation of the Swedish short forms of the pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ-7), pelvic floor distress inventory (PFDI-20) and pelvic organ prolapse/urinary incontinence sexual questionnaire (PISQ-12). Acta Obstet Gyn Scan. 2011;90(5):483–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01085.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Macin D, Campbell MJ, Say-Beng T, Sze-Huey T (2008) Sample size tables for clinical studies. 3rd edition edn. Wiley-Blackwell,Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ünlübilgin ESAA, Ilhan TT, Dölen I. Which one is the appropriate approach for uterine prolapse: Manchester procedure or vaginal hysterectomy? Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci. 2013;33(2):321–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Morlin B, Hammarstrom M. A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1593–601.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0702-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Easley DC, Abramowitch SD, Moalli PA. Female pelvic floor biomechanics: bridging the gap. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27(3):262–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000380.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Conger GT, Keettel WC. The Manchester-Fothergill operation, its place in gynecology; a review of 960 cases at university hospitals, Iowa City, Iowa. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1958;76(3):634–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1815–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dallenbach P. To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery. Int J Women’s Health. 2015;7:331–43.  https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S71236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ayhan A, Esin S, Guven S, Salman C, Ozyuncu O. The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. Int J Gynecol Obstet 92 (3):228-233. 2006.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.12.002.
  29. 29.
    Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Lu YS, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2 Pt 1):233–41.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318299a6cf.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Altman D, Falconer C, Cnattingius S, Granath F. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy on benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):572.e571–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GynaecologyOslo University HospitalOsloNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations