Does concurrent posterior repair for an asymptomatic rectocele reduce the risk of surgical failure in patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy?

A Correction to this article was published on 27 October 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

To determine if a concurrent posterior repair for an asymptomatic rectocele at the time of sacrocolpopexy reduces the incidence of surgical failure.

Methods

This is a retrospective chart review with a cross‐sectional follow-up survey of all patients who underwent sacrocolpopexy from 2004 to 2014. Demographic and operative data were collected from the medical record. For the cross-sectional portion, patients were contacted to obtain information on symptoms and retreatment after surgery. In this study, we included patients with an asymptomatic rectocele on examination, defined as Ap or Bp ≥ −1 on POP-Q without defecatory dysfunction, which was defined as constipation based on the Rome III criteria, dyschezia, excessive straining and/or splinting to have a bowel movement. The primary outcome was a composite score of subjective bulge symptoms or retreatment for prolapse.

Results

Three hundred forty-four patients met the inclusion criteria: 185 (53.8%) had a sacrocolpopexy only (SCP) and 159 (46.2%) had a concurrent posterior repair (SCP + PR). The composite failure rate was 10.2% (95% CI = 7.4–13.8%), with a 13.5% (25) failure rate in the SCP group compared with 6.3% (10) in the SCP + PR group (p = 0.03). On multivariable logistic regression, the adjusted odds of failure was 2.79 in the SCP compared with the SCP + PR group (CI 1.25-6.23; P = 0.01). The rates of de novo defecatory dysfunction following surgery were low (SCP = 5.6% vs. SCP + PR = 7.5%, p = 0.55).

Conclusions

For patients with asymptomatic rectoceles, a concurrent posterior repair at the time of sacrocolpopexy reduces the odds of composite patient-centered failure without an increased rate of dyspareunia or de novo defecatory dysfunction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

References

  1. 1.

    Hilger WS, Poulson M, Norton PA. Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(6):1606–1610. discussion 1610-1.

  2. 2.

    Culligan PJ, Murphy M, Blackwell L, Hammons G, Graham C, Heit MH. Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(6):1473–1480. discussion 1481-2.

  3. 3.

    Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):20–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD012376.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    DeLancey JOL. Anatomy of the pelvis. In: Thompson JD, Rock JA, editors. TeLinde’s Operative Gynecology, 7th ed. JB Lippincott; 1992.

  6. 6.

    DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6 Pt 1):1717–24; discussion 1724-8.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kanter G, Jeppson PC, McGuire BL, Rogers RG. Perineorrhaphy: commonly performed yet poorly understood. A survey of surgeons. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(12):1797–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lowder JL, Oliphant SS, Shepherd JP, Ghetti C, Sutkin G. Genital hiatus size is associated with and predictive of apical vaginal support loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(6):718.e1-718.e8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bradley MS, Askew AL, Vaughan MH, Kawasaki A, Visco AG. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: early postoperative outcomes after surgical reduction of enlarged genital hiatus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(5):514.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Carter-Brooks CM, Lowder JL, Du AL, Lavelle ES, Giugale LE, Shepherd JP. Restoring genital Hiatus to normative values after apical suspension alone versus with level 3 support procedures. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(3):226–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Fox SD, Stanton SL. Vault prolapse and rectocele: assessment of repair using sacrocolpopexy with mesh interposition. BJOG. 2000;107(11):1371–5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Guiahi M, Kenton K, Brubaker L. Sacrocolpopexy without concomitant posterior repair improves posterior compartment defects. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(9):1267–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Bump RC, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Shih DQ, Kwan LY. All roads lead to Rome: update on Rome III criteria and new treatment options. Gastroenterol Rep. 2007;1(2):56–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kaser DJ, Kinsler EL, Mackenzie TA, Hanissian P, Strohbehn K, Whiteside JL. Anatomic and functional outcomes of sacrocolpopexy with or without posterior colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(9):1215–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Crane AK, Geller EJ, Matthews CA. Outlet constipation 1 year after robotic Sacrocolpopexy with and without concomitant posterior repair. South Med J. 2013;106(7):409–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lowder JL, Ghetti C, Nikolajski C, Oliphant SS, Zyczynski HM. Body image perceptions in women with pelvic organ prolapse: a qualitative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(5):441.e1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kahn MA, Stanton SL. Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(1):82–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bradley CS, et al. Bowel symptoms in women 1 year after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):642.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR. Sexual function and vaginal anatomy in women before and after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(6):1610–5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mellgren A, et al. Results of rectocele repair. A prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38(1):7–13.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Arnold MW, Stewart WR, Aguilar PS. Rectocele repair. Four years’ experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 1990;33(8):684–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Porter WE, Steele A, Walsh P, Kohli N, Karram MM. The anatomic and functional outcomes of defect-specific rectocele repairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(6):1353–8; discussion 1358-9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lewis C, Salamon C, Priestley JL, Gurshumov E, Culligan P. Prospective cohort study of bowel function after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(2):87–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

OC: Protocol/project development, Data collection/ management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing.

ED: Protocol/project development, Data collection/ management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing.

TT: Protocol/project development, Data collection/ management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing.

MP: Protocol/project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing.

CF: Protocol/project development, Data collection/ management, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivia H. Chang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author(s) report(s) no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This manuscript was presented as a poster at the joint AUGS/IUGA scientific meeting in 2019 in Nashville, TN.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chang, O.H., Davidson, E.R.W., Thomas, T.N. et al. Does concurrent posterior repair for an asymptomatic rectocele reduce the risk of surgical failure in patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy?. Int Urogynecol J 31, 2075–2080 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04268-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sacrocolpopexy
  • Prolapse recurrence
  • Posterior colporrhaphy
  • Rectocele
  • Defecatory dysfunction
  • Pelvic organ prolapse