The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes
- 313 Downloads
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.
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).
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.
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.
KeywordsDyspareunia Gynecologic surgical procedures Pelvic organ prolapse Recurrence
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
- 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
- 7.FDA. FDA strengthens requirements for surgical mesh for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to address safety risks. 2016.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.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.Macin D, Campbell MJ, Say-Beng T, Sze-Huey T (2008) Sample size tables for clinical studies. 3rd edition edn. Wiley-Blackwell,Google Scholar
- 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.