Advertisement

Sexual satisfaction in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome after surgical and non-surgical techniques: a systematic review

  • Sahar Dabaghi
  • Mitra ZandiEmail author
  • Mahnaz Ilkhani
Review Article
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The treatment and mental support of patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome are very important. Many of these patients seek treatment to improve their sexual relationships and the quality of their sexual life. This systematic review sought to evaluate the sexual satisfaction of patients with MRKH syndrome following various types of vaginoplasty and non-surgical procedures over the past 10 years.

Methods

A systematic review of studies published in English during 2008–2018 was performed. Electronic databases and valid sites, including PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Ovid, and ProQuest, were searched for articles published from the beginning of 2008 to February 2018. Literature restricted to women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome who underwent vaginoplasty surgery or a non-surgical technique was reviewed. Of 195 papers identified, 45 articles were analyzed. All studies that reported sexual and functional outcomes following various vaginoplasty procedures and non-surgical procedures were selected.

Results

Greater vaginal length and higher sexual satisfaction were observed following surgical procedures than after non-surgical techniques. A range of complications was reported following the use of different surgical approaches. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) was the most commonly applied tool to measure sexual satisfaction, but its results were not always in agreement with the findings of other research tools. Finally, women who underwent surgical techniques had higher sexual activity levels than those who received non-surgical procedures.

Conclusion

The reviewed studies highlighted the need for further quantitative and qualitative research on the sexual performance and outcomes of patients with MRKH syndrome.

Registration number

None.

Keywords

Sexual satisfaction Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome Surgical Non-surgical 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Wright C, Hanna M. Thirty-six vaginal constructions: lessons learned. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(4):667–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Raya-Rivera AM, Esquiliano D, Fierro-Pastrana R, López-Bayghen E, Valencia P, Ordorica-Flores R, et al. Tissue-engineered autologous vaginal organs in patients: a pilot cohort study. Lancet. 2014;384(9940):329–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Labus LD, Djordjevic ML, Stanojevic DS, Bizic MR, Stojanovic BZ, Cavic TM. Rectosigmoid vaginoplasty in patients with vaginal agenesis: sexual and psychosocial outcomes. Sex Health. 2011;8(3):427–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohamed Ahmed Thabet S, Hussein Ali A. New attempt using labio-vestibular flap technique to manage circumcised women with Rokitansky syndrome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(1):94–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Panici PB, Maffucci D, Ceccarelli S, Vescarelli E, Perniola G, Muzii L, et al. Autologous in vitro cultured vaginal tissue for vaginoplasty in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: anatomic and functional results. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(2):205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Callens N, De Cuypere G, De Sutter P, Monstrey S, Weyers S, Hoebeke P, et al. An update on surgical and non-surgical treatments for vaginal hypoplasia. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(5):775–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ketheeswaran A, Morrisey J, Abbott J, Bennett M, Dudley J, Deans R. Intensive vaginal dilation using adjuvant treatments in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome: retrospective cohort study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(1):108–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhu L, Zhou H, Sun Z, Lou W, Lang J. Anatomic and sexual outcomes after vaginoplasty using tissue-engineered biomaterial graft in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: a new minimally invasive and effective surgery. J Sex Med. 2013;10(6):1652–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Callens N, Weyers S, Monstrey S, Stockman S, Van Hoorde B, Van Hoecke E, et al. Vaginal dilation treatment in women with vaginal hypoplasia: a prospective one-year follow-up study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(3):228.e1–228.e12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jasonni VM. Vaginal agenesis: surgical and nonsurgical strategies. Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2012;7(3):281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carrard C, Chevret-Measson M, Lunel A, Raudrant D. Sexuality after sigmoid vaginoplasty in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(3):691–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuhn A, Neukomm C, Dreher EF, Imobersteg J, Mueller MD. Prolapse and sexual function 8 years after neovagina according to Shears: a study of 43 cases with Mayer–von Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(6):1047–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gatti C, Del Rossi C, Lombardi L, Caravaggi F, Casolari E, Casadio G. Sexuality and psychosocial functioning in young women after colovaginoplasty. J Urol. 2010;184(4):1799–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allen LM, Lucco KL, Brown CM, Spitzer RF, Kives S. Psychosexual and functional outcomes after creation of a neovagina with laparoscopic Davydov in patients with vaginal agenesis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2272–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gu Y, Zhang X, Kong B, Yu Y. Neovagina constructed with the peritoneum of the anterior abdominal wall. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36(3):651–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borkowski A, Czaplicki M, Dobronski P. Twenty years of experience with Krzeski’s cystovaginoplasty for vaginal agenesis in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster–Hauser syndrome: anatomical, histological, cytological and functional results. BJU Int. 2008;101(11):1433–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morcel K, Lavoué V, Jaffre F, Paniel B-J, Rouzier R. Sexual and functional results after creation of a neovagina in women with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome: a comparison of nonsurgical and surgical procedures. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;169(2):317–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chan JL, Levin PJ, Ford BP, Stanton DC, Pfeifer SM. Vaginoplasty with an autologous buccal mucosa fenestrated graft in two patients with vaginal agenesis: a multidisciplinary approach and literature review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(4):670–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhao X, Wang R, Wang Y, Li L, Zhang H, Kang S. Comparison of two laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty techniques in patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(8):1201–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ding J-X, L-m C, X-y Z, Zhang Y, Hua K-Q. Sexual and functional outcomes of vaginoplasty using acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft or laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty: a comparative study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(3):581–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Edmonds DK, Rose GL, Lipton MG, Quek J. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: a review of 245 consecutive cases managed by a multidisciplinary approach with vaginal dilators. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(3):686–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu JX, Li B, Li WZ, Jiang YG, Liang JX, Zhong CX. Laparoscopic vaginal reconstruction using an ileal segment. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2009;107(3):258–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Erman Akar M, Özkan Ö, Özkan Ö, Colak T, Gecici O. Sexual function and long-term results following vaginal reconstruction with free vascular jejunal flap. J Sex Med. 2013;10(11):2849–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pastor Z, Froněk J, Nováčková M, Chmel R. Sexual life of women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome after laparoscopic vecchietti vaginoplasty. Sexual Medicine. 2017;5(2):e106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Creatsas G, Deligeoroglou E. Vaginal aplasia and reconstruction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24(2):185–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Creatsas G, Deligeoroglou E, Christopoulos P. Creation of a neovagina after Creatsas modification of Williams vaginoplasty for the treatment of 200 patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1848–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Le A, Wang Z, Shan L, Xiao T, Zhuo R, Luo G. Retracted article: Peritoneal vaginoplasty by Luohu I and Luohu II technique: a comparative study of the outcomes. Eur J Med Res. 2015;20(1):69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gari A. Mclndoe Neovagina in patients with Mullerian agenesis: a single center experience. Pak J Med Sci. 2017;33(1):236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vatsa R, Bharti J, Roy KK, Kumar S, Sharma JB, Singh N, et al. Evaluation of amnion in creation of neovagina in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(2):341–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhao X-W, Ma J-Y, Wang Y-X, Zhang H, Zhang J, Kang S. Laparoscopic vaginoplasty using a single peritoneal flap: 10 years of experience in the creation of a neovagina in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(1):241–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Liu X, Liu M, Hua K, Li B, Guo S-W. Sexuality after laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16(6):720–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fedele L, Frontino G, Restelli E, Ciappina N, Motta F, Bianchi S. Creation of a neovagina by Davydov’s laparoscopic modified technique in patients with Rokitansky syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(1):33.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shen Y, Wang G, Xiong Z, Tao K, Wang Z. Laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Front Med China. 2009;3(3):347–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhou J-H, Sun J, Yang C-B, Xie Z-W, Shao W-Q, Jin H-M. Long-term outcomes of transvestibular vaginoplasty with pelvic peritoneum in 182 patients with Rokitansky’s syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2281–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wu J, Guo R, Chu D, Wang X, Li L, Bian A, et al. Comparison of two techniques of laparoscopy-assisted peritoneal vaginoplasty. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(3):346–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    de Sousa Marques H, dos Santos FL, Lopes-Costa PV, dos Santos AR, da Silva BB. Creation of a neovagina in patients with Rokitansky syndrome using peritoneum from the pouch of Douglas: an analysis of 48 cases. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):827–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li S, Sun C, Shi B, Li M, Liu L. Laparoscopic vaginoplasty using a sigmoid graft through the umbilical single-incision hybrid transperineal approach: our initial experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2014;24(5):354–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang M, Li S, Huang X, Du H, Wang C, Zhang L, et al. Transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic vaginoplasty hybrid transperineal approach using a sigmoid colon segment: initial twenty-five cases. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48(9):1401–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Karateke A, Haliloglu B, Parlak O, Cam C, Coksuer H. Intestinal vaginoplasty: seven years’ experience of a tertiary center. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(6):2312–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Csermely T, Halvax L, Sárkány Á, Jeges S, Vizer M, Bózsa S, et al. Sexual function after modified laparoscopic Vecchietti’s vaginoplasty. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2011;24(3):147–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fotopoulou C, Sehouli J, Gehrmann N, Schoenborn I, Lichtenegger W. Functional and anatomic results of amnion vaginoplasty in young women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):317–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cao L, Wang Y, Li Y, Xu H. Prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty with laparoscopic sigmoid vaginoplasty for treating congenital vaginal agenesis. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(7):1173–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Walch K, Kowarik E, Leithner K, Schätz T, Dörfler D, Wenzl R. Functional and anatomic results after creation of a neovagina according to Wharton-Sheares-George in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome—long-term follow-up. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):492.e1–7.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Al-Mehaisen L, Amarin Z, Hani OB, Ziad F, Al-Kuran O. Ileum neovaginoplasty for Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser: review and case series. Afr J Urol. 2017;23(2):154–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Han S-E, Go JY, Choi DS, Seo GH, Lim SY. Experience with specially designed pored polyacetal mold dressing method used in McIndoe-style vaginoplasty. J Pediatr Urol. 2017;13(6):621.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Toidze TV, Echols KT, Caraballo R. A novel approach to recurrent vaginal vault prolapse in a patient with Müllerian agenesis. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(3):e33–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mungadi L, Ahmad Y, Yunusa G, Agwu N, Ismail S. Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome: surgical management of two cases. J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2010;2(1):39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Student Research Committee, Nursing and Midwifery FacultyShahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  2. 2.Nursing Department, Nursing and Midwifery FacultyShahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations