Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
We aimed to determine if the use of permanent suture for the apical fixation during traditional anterior colporrhaphy results in improved outcomes compared to delayed absorbable suture.
Methods
A retrospective case-control study was performed in patients who underwent traditional non-grafted anterior colporrhaphy with reattachment of the anterior endopelvic fascia to the apex/cervix comparing permanent (group 1) or absorbable suture (group 2). Patients were matched based on age, body mass index, and presenting stage of prolapse. The primary outcome assessed was anterior wall vaginal prolapse recurrence defined as Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) points Aa or Ba ≥ −1 cm. Secondary outcome measures included overall prolapse stage, subjective reporting of satisfaction, and any healing abnormalities or complications resulting from suture type.
Results
A total of 230 patients were reviewed (80 in group 1 and 150 in group 2) and median follow-up was 52 (24–174) weeks. A statistically significant improvement in anterior wall anatomy was seen in group 1 compared to group 2 [(Aa −2.70 ± 0.6 cm vs −2.5 ± 0.75 cm, p = 0.02) and Ba (−2.68 ± 0.65 cm vs −2.51 ± 0.73 cm, p = 0.03), respectively]. Comparing prolapse stage, there were no observed differences between the groups. Exposure of the permanent suture occurred in 12 patients (15 %) and 5 (6.5 %) required suture trimming to treat the exposure.
Conclusions
Reattachment of endopelvic fascia to the apex at the time of anterior colporrhaphy results in low recurrence rates. Use of permanent suture for apical fixation is associated with improved anatomic correction at the expense of increased suture exposures.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyrén O, Hammarström M (2005) Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in a Swedish population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:497–503
Rortveit G, Brown JS, Thom DH, Van Den Eeden SK, Creasman JM, Subak LL (2007) Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: prevalence and risk factors in a population-based, racially diverse cohort. Obstet Gynecol 109:1396–1403
Shah AD, Kohli N, Rajan SS, Hoyte L (2008) The age distribution, rates, and types of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the USA. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:421–428
Nichols DH, Randall CH (1996) Vaginal surgery, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
Rock JA, Jones HW (2003) Te Linde’s operative gynecology, 9th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
Kelly HA (1913) Incontinence of urine in women. Urol Cutan Rev 17:291–293
Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1304
Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW et al (2001) Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1357–1362
Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891–898
Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M, Pifarotti P, Meschia BM, Cortese M (2005) Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. BJOG 112:107–111
de Tayrac R, Devoldere D, Renaudie J, Villard P, Guilbaud O, Eglin G, French Ugytex Study Group (2007) Prolapse repair by vaginal route using a new protected low-weight polypropylene mesh: 1-year functional and anatomical outcome in a prospective multicentre study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:251–256
Rogers RG (2011) To mesh or not to mesh: current debates in prolapse repair fueled by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Safety Notification. Obstet Gynecol 118(4):771–773
Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Peterson JL, Shott S (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116:293–303
Goldstein HB, Vakili B, Franco N, Echols KT, Chesson R (2007) The effect of suture material on outcomes of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Pelviperineology 26:174–177
Peterson T, Karp DR, Aguilar V, Davila GW (2010) Primary versus recurrent prolapsed surgery: differences in outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 21:483–488
Chung CP, Miskimins R, Kuehl TJ, Yandell PM, Shull BL (2012) Permanent suture used in uterosacral ligament suspension offers better anatomical support than delayed absorbable suture. Int Urogynecol J 23:223–227
Goldberg RP, Koduri S, Lobel RW et al (2001) Protective effect of suburethral slings on postoperative cystocele recurrence after reconstructive pelvic operation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1307–1312
Tantanasis T, Giannoulis C, Daniilidis A, Papathanasiou K, Loufopoulos A, Tzafettas J (2008) Tension free vaginal tape underneath bladder base: does it prevent cystocele recurrence? Hippokratia 12:108–112
Conflicts of interest
GW Davila: consultant and honoraria: Astellas, Watson, American Medical Systems, Novasys Medical, CL Medical; research funding: American Medical Systems, Astellas. Other authors: none.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zebede, S., Smith, A.L., Lefevre, R. et al. Reattachment of the endopelvic fascia to the apex during anterior colporrhaphy: does the type of suture matter?. Int Urogynecol J 24, 141–145 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1862-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1862-4