Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1835–1841 | Cite as

Surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse

  • Mickey Karram
  • Christopher Maher
POP Surgery Review

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim was to review the safety and efficacy of surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

Methods

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 (case reports). The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or “majority evidence” from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or “majority evidence‟ from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D “no recommendation possible” would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi.

Results

Level 1 and 2 evidence suggest that midline plication posterior repair without levatorplasty might have superior objective outcomes compared with site-specific posterior reopair (grade B). Higher dyspareunia rates are reported when levatorplasty is employed (grade C). The transvaginal approach is superior to the transanal approach for repair of posterior wall prolapse (grade A). To date, no studies have shown any benefit of mesh overlay or augmentation of a suture repair for posterior vaginal wall prolapse (grade B). While modified abdominal sacrocolpopexy results have been reported, data on how these results would compare with traditional transvaginal repair of posterior vaginal wall prolapse are lacking.

Conclusion

Midline fascial plication without levatorplasty is the procedure of choice for posterior compartment prolapse. No evidence supports the use of polypropylene mesh or biological graft in posterior vaginal compartment prolapse surgery.

Keywords

Rectocele Posterior colporrhaphy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This publication results from the work of the Committee on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery, part of the 5th International Consultation on Incontinence, held in Paris in February 2012, under the auspices of the International Consultation on Urological Diseases, and enabled by the support of the European Association of Urology.

The authors wish to acknowledge the fine work of previous consultations led by Professor Linda Brubaker.

Conflicts of interest

M. Karram: speaker and consultant for AMS, Astellas, and Medtronic; C. Maher: none.

References

  1. 1.
    Handa VL, Garrett E, Hendrix S, Gold E, Robbins J (2004) Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: a longitudinal study of menopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190(1):27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(6):1160–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L (2003) Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979–1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188(1):108–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89(4):501–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD (2004) Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(5):1533–1538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Francis WJA, Jeffcoate TNA (1961) Dyspareunia following vaginal operations. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 68:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richardson AC (1993) The rectovaginal septum revisited: its relationship to rectocele and its importance in rectocele repair. Clin Obstet Gynecol 36(4):976–983PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farrell SA, Dempsey T, Geldenhuys L (2001) Histologic examination of “fascia” used in colporrhaphy. Obstet Gynecol 98(5 Pt 1):794–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeLancey JO (1999) Structural anatomy of the posterior pelvic compartment as it relates to rectocele. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180(4):815–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewicky-Gaupp C, Brincat C, Trowbridge ER et al (2009) Racial differences in bother for women with urinary incontinence in the Establishing the Prevalence of Incontinence (EPI) study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 201(5):510e1–510e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fenner DE (1996) Diagnosis and assessment of sigmoidoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(6):1438–1441; discussion 1441–1442Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arnold MW, Stewart WR, Aguilar PS (1990) Rectocele repair. Four years’ experience. Dis Colon Rectum 33:684–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mellgren A, Anzen B, Nilsson BY et al (1995) Results of rectocele repair. A prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 38(1):7–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahn MA, Stanton SL (1997) Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:82–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR (2000) Sexual function and vaginal anatomy in women before and after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182(6):1610–1615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(7):1357–1362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maher CF, Qatwneh A, Baessler K, Schluter P (2002) Midline rectovaginal fascial plication for repair of rectocele and obstructed defecation. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13(1). Abstract 166Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abramov Y, Kwon C, Gandhi S, Goldberg R, Sand PK (2003) Long-term anatomic outcome of discrete site-specific defect repair versus standard posterior colporrhaphy for the correction of advanced rectocele: a 1 year follow-up analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 22(5):520–521Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118(5):1005–1013PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Addison WA, Bump RC (1998) An anatomic and functional assessment of the discrete defect rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(6 Pt 1):1451–1456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Porter WE, Steele A, Walsh P, Kohli N, Karram MM (1999) The anatomic and functional outcomes of defect-specific rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1353–1359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L (1999) Outcome after rectovaginal fascia reattachment for rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181(6):1360–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glavind K, Madsen H (2000) A prospective study of the discrete fascial defect rectocele repair. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 79(2):145–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh K, Cortes E, Reid WM (2003) Evaluation of the fascial technique for surgical repair of isolated posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 101(2):320–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abramov Y, Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Botros SM, Kwon C, Sand PK (2005) Site-specific rectocele repair compared with standard posterior colporrhaphy. Obstet Gynecol 105(2):314–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Paraiso MFR, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195(6):1762–1771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sung VW, Rardin CR, Raker CA, Lasala CA, Myers DL (2012) Porcine subintestinal submucosal graft augmentation for rectocele repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 119(1):125–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vijaya G, Dell’Utri C, Derpapas A et al (2011) Prospective randomised trial comparing two surgical techniques for posterior vaginal wall prolapse using subjective and objective measures. International Continence Society; 2011; GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kahn MA, Stanton SL, Kumar D, Fox SD (1999) Posterior colporrhaphy is superior to the transanal repair for treatment of posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 18(4):70–71Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen KM, Laitinen J, Oksala J, Heinonen PK (2004) Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: a prospective, randomized pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 47(10):1636–1642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Farid M, Madbouly KM, Hussein A, Mahdy T, Moneim HA, Omar W (2010) Randomized controlled trial between perineal and anal repairs of rectocele in obstructed defecation. World J Surg 34(4):822–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Puigdollers A, Fernandez-Fraga X, Azpiroz F (2007) Persistent symptoms of functional outlet obstruction after rectocele repair. Colorectal Dis 9(3):262–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thornton MJ, Lam A, King DW (2005) Laparoscopic or transanal repair of rectocele? A retrospective matched cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum 48(4):792–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van Dam JH, Huisman WM, Hop WC, Schouten WR (2000) Fecal continence after rectocele repair: a prospective study. Int J Colorectal Dis 15(1):54–57Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Altman D, Zetterstrom J, Mellgren A, Gustafsson C, Anzen B, Lopez A (2006) A 3-year prospective assessment of rectocele repair using porcine xenograft. Obstet Gynecol 107(1):59–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baessler K, Schuessler B (2001) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy and anatomy and function of the posterior compartment. Obstet Gynecol 97(5 Pt 1):678–684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fox SD, Stanton SL (2000) Vault prolapse and rectocele: assessment of repair using sacrocolpopexy with mesh interposition. BJOG 107(11):1371–1375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Su KC, Mutone MF, Terry CL, Hale DS (2007) Abdominovaginal sacral colpoperineopexy: patient perceptions, anatomical outcomes, and graft erosions. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(5):503–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lyons TL, Winer WK (1997) Laparoscopic rectocele repair using polyglactin mesh. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4(3):381–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marinkovic SP, Stanton SL (2003) Triple compartment prolapse: sacrocolpopexy with anterior and posterior mesh extensions. BJOG 110(3):323–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICUD-EAU 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Christ HospitalCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Royal Brisbane and Wesley UrogynaecologyBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.BrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations