Colpocleisis with a skin flap

  • Alois Martan
  • Kamil Svabik
  • Jaromir Masata
  • Jaromir MasataEmail author
IUJ Video


Introduction and hypothesis

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem affecting up to 50% of women over the age of 50. The various methods of reconstructive pelvic organ prolapse surgery have been reported to be associated with long-term recurrence rates of up to 50%.


Management of patients with repeated failure of different surgical procedures is often challenging. Obliterative surgery can be an option for women with a POP-Q stage 2 or larger genital prolapse who are not sexually active. The video of the procedure shows how to address enterocele with frail and puffy vaginal epithelium of the posterior vaginal wall after unsuccessful surgery procedures by employing a perineal skin flap. The repeated enterocele was treated by using a skin flap during a LeFort colpocleisis, and Labhard perineoplasty was added.


In some patients obliterative surgery may fail, especially those with recurrent POP. The use of a perineal skin flap in reoperation of POP is a possible solution for surgical treatment of recurrent enterocele with poor quality of the posterior vaginal wall. This patient’s postoperative course was uneventful. At her follow-up visit 2 months later an examination revealed excellent healing.


Obliterative surgery can be an option for women with large prolapses who are not sexually active and do not plan to be so in the future. Le Fort with perineal skin flap and Labhard high perineoplasty is one possible surgical technique which can treat recurrent pelvic organ prolapse in older patients where previous procedures have failed.


LeFort colpocleisis Recurrence Pelvic organ prolapse Surgery 


Funding information

This work was supported by Charles University in Prague UNCE 204024.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest


Supplementary material


(MP4 99818 kb)


  1. 1.
    Samuelsson EC, Arne Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgical managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1201–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dällenbach P. To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery. Int J Women's Health. 2015;7:331–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ricci JV. Chapter 7, part 3: Gynaecological surgery and instruments of the renaissance period. In: The development of Gynaecological surgery and instruments. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: The Blakinson Company; 1949:417–441.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dessie SG, Shapiro A, Haviland MJ, Hacker MR, Elkadry EA. Obliterative versus reconstructive prolapse repair for women over 70—is there an optimal approach? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(1):23–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mikos T, Chatzipanteli M, Grimbizis GF, Tarlatzis BC. Enlightening the mechanism of POP recurrence after LeFort colpocleisis. Case report and review. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:971–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zebede S, Smith AL, Plowringht LN, Hedge A, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Obliterative LeFort colpocleisis in a large group of elderly women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(2 Pt 1):279–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchsbaum GM, Lee TG. Vaginal Obliterative procedure for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Survay. 2017;72:175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Linder BJ, Gebhart JB, Occhino JA. Total colpocleisis: technical considerations. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1767–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Siddique S, Thompson P, Zyczynski H, Weber A. Colpocleisis: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17:261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones K, Wang G, Romano R, St Marie P, Harmanli O. Colpocleisis: a survey of current practice patterns. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23:276–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knapstein PG, Friedberg V, Sevin BU. Reconstructive Surgery in Gynecology. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag, 1990, p.281. ISBN. 978-3137495017.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Huisseling JCM. A modification of Labhardt’s high perineoplasty for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in the very old. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:185–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pizarro-Berdichevsky J, Galleguillos G, Cuevas R, Blümel B, Pattillo A, Gonzales S, et al. Labhardt’s colpoperineocleisis: subjective results of an alternative treatment for genital prolapse in patients who are not sexually active: 2-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:417–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pope RJ, Brown RH, Chipungu E, Hollier LH Jr, Wilkinson JP. The use of Singapore flaps for vaginal reconstruction in women with vaginal stenosis with obstetric fistula: a surgical technique. BJOG. 2018;125:751–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martan A, Svabik K, Zamecnik L, Masata J. Surgical management of recurrent urethrovaginal fistula with a skin island flap. Int Urogynecol L. 2019;30:839–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1st Faculty of MedicineCharles University and General University Hospital in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations