Comparison of neovaginoplasty using acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft or Interceed in patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome
- 31 Downloads
To compare using the acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) graft or the Interceed in patients with MRKH syndrome undergoing creation of a neovagina.
In this retrospective study, patients with MRKH syndrome undergoing creation of a neovagina from 2016 to 2018 were retrospectively investigated. Wharton–Sheares–George neovaginoplasty was performed using the acellular porcine SIS graft or the Interceed.
Overall, 67 patients were included for analysis. The operating time, the estimated blood loss and return of bowel activity were similar between the two groups. However, the total cost in the SIS group was significantly higher than that in the Interceed group due to the cost of the SIS graft. The mean length and width of the neovagina were similar between the two groups. However, the incidence of granulation in vaginal apex was higher in the SIS graft group than that in the Interceed group. There was no statistically significant difference in the total FSFI scores between the two groups who became sexually active postoperatively.
Our results demonstrated that Wharton–Sheares–George method provided the patients to have satisfactory sexual intercourse. The Interceed played a role in the reconstruction of neovagina no less than the SIS graft.
KeywordsMRKH syndrome Acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft Neovagina
This study was supported by a grant from the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (Grant No. 17411960900).
KH, JD contributed to the design of the manuscript. XZ, JD helped in writing the manuscript. JQ contributed to the statistics.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2.ACOG (2013) Committee opinion: no. 562: müllerian agenesis: diagnosis, management, and treatment. Committee on Adolescent Health Care. Obstet Gynecol 2013(121):1134–1137Google Scholar
- 13.Ahmad G, O’Flynn H, Hindocha A et al (2015) Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 30:CD000475Google Scholar