To determine if a concurrent posterior repair for an asymptomatic rectocele at the time of sacrocolpopexy reduces the incidence of surgical failure.
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.
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).
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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Hilger WS, Poulson M, Norton PA. Long-term results of abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(6):1606–1610. discussion 1610-1.
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.
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.
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.
DeLancey JOL. Anatomy of the pelvis. In: Thompson JD, Rock JA, editors. TeLinde’s Operative Gynecology, 7th ed. JB Lippincott; 1992.
DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6 Pt 1):1717–24; discussion 1724-8.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fox SD, Stanton SL. Vault prolapse and rectocele: assessment of repair using sacrocolpopexy with mesh interposition. BJOG. 2000;107(11):1371–5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kahn MA, Stanton SL. Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(1):82–6.
Bradley CS, et al. Bowel symptoms in women 1 year after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):642.e1–8.
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.
Mellgren A, et al. Results of rectocele repair. A prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38(1):7–13.
Arnold MW, Stewart WR, Aguilar PS. Rectocele repair. Four years’ experience. Dis Colon Rectum. 1990;33(8):684–7.
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.
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.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) report(s) no conflict of interest.
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.
About this article
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
- Prolapse recurrence
- Posterior colporrhaphy
- Defecatory dysfunction
- Pelvic organ prolapse