Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Anterior colporrhaphy: why surgeon performance is paramount

  • Clinical Opinion
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anterior compartment repair is one of the most challenging issues in reconstructive pelvic surgery. Previous studies using strict anatomic criteria suggested a high failure rate after anterior colporrhaphy, prompting increased use of augmented repairs in the past decade. More recent studies suggest anterior colporrhaphy may provide symptom relief similar to that seen with augmented repairs without the risks associated with placement of mesh. There is a wide range of success rates for anterior colporrhaphy in the literature. The wide variation implies surgeon performance is a key issue in the success or failure of anterior compartment repair. It is critical to begin measuring and reporting surgeon performance in research trials and monitoring surgeon performance in clinical practice in order to make meaningful comparisons of surgical techniques and improve patient care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Winkler HA, Tomezsko J, Culligan PJ et al (2001) Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1357–1362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA (2001) Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1299–1306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roovers JPWR, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JHS, Scholten PC, Heintz APM (2004) A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG 111:50–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Kwon C et al (2005) A prospective randomized trial using solvent dehydrated fascia lata for the prevention of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(5):1649–1654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK (2007) Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110:455–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, Magatti F, Riva D, Kocjancic E (2007) Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicenter, randomized study. J Urol 177(1):192–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111(4):891–898

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Heiskanen E, Takala T, Niemi K, Merikari M et al (2008) Symptom resolution and sexual function after anterior vaginal wall repair with or without polypropylene mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1611–1616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Natale F, La Penna C, Padoa A, Agostini M, De Simone E, Cervigni M (2009) A prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing Gynemesh, a synthetic mesh, and Pelvicol, a biologic graft, in the surgical treatment of recurrent cystocele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(1):75–81

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J et al (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 116(10):1380–1386

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Guerette NL, Peterson TV, Aguirre OA, Vandrie DM, Biller DH, Davila GW (2009) Anterior repair with or without collagen matrix reinforcement: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 114(1):59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T et al (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203(3):235.e1–235.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feldner PC Jr, Castro RA, Cipolotti LA, Delroy CA, Sartori MG, Girão MJ (2010) Anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial of SIS graft versus traditional colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J 21(9):1057–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hviid U, Hviid TV, Rudnicki M (2010) Porcine skin collagen implants for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised prospective controlled study. Int Urogynecol J 21(5):529–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117:242–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dahlgren E, Kjølhede P, RPOP-PELVICOL Study Group (2011) Long-term outcome of porcine skin graft in surgical treatment of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. An open randomized controlled multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 90(12):1393–1401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menefee SA, Dyer KY, Lukacz ES, Simsiman AJ, Luber KM, Nguyen JN (2011) Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft-reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1337–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH (2011) Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG 118(12):1518–1527

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sokol AI, Iglesia CB, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Shveiky D, Bercik R, Sokol ER (2012) One-year objective and functional outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of vaginal mesh for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(1):86.e1–86.e9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gutman RE, Nosti PA, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Peterson JL, Wang H, Iglesia CB (2013) Three-year outcomes of vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 122:770–777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. de Tayrac R, Cornille A, Eglin G, Guilbaud O, Mansoor A, Alonso S, Fernandez H (2013) Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT. Int Urogynecol J 24:1651–1661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Delroy CA, Castro Rde A, Dias MM, Feldner PC Jr, Bortolini MA, Girão MJ, Sartori MG (2013) The use of transvaginal synthetic mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1899–1907

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McLeod RS, Wright JG, Solomon MJ, Hu X, Walters BC, Lossing A (1996) Randomized controlled trials in surgery: issues and problems. Surgery 119(5):483–486

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chang DC, Matsen SL, Simpkins CE (2006) Why should surgeons care about clinical research methodology? J Am Coll Surg 203:827–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Beger HG, Rau BM (2006) Randomized controlled clinical trials—support but not substitute of decision-making in surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 391:301–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Roman H, Marpeau L, Hulsey TC (2008) Surgeons’ experience and interaction effect in randomized controlled trials regarding new surgical procedures. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:108.e1–108.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hilton P (2002) Trials of surgery for stress incontinence—thoughts on the ‘Humpty Dumpty principle’. BJOG 109:1081–1088

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dwyer PL, O’Reilly BA (2004) Transvaginal repair of anterior and posterior compartment prolapse with Atrium polypropylene mesh. BJOG 111:831–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Achtari C, Hiscock R, O’Reilly BA, Schierlitz L, Dwyer PL (2005) Risk factors for mesh erosion after transvaginal surgery using polypropylene (Atrium) or composite polypropylene/polyglactin 910 (Vypro II) mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:389–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Hendriks JC, Kluivers KB, Milani AL (2011) Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet Gynecol 118:629–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jelovsek JE, Walters MD, Korn A, Klingele C, Zite N, Ridgeway B, Barber M (2010) Establishing cutoff scores on assessments of surgical skills to determine surgical competence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:81.e1–81.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lenihan JP Jr, Kovanda C, Seshadri-Kreadan U (2008) What is the learning curve for robotic assisted gynecologic surgery? J Minim Invasive Gynecol 15(5):589–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Claerhout F, Roovers JP, Lewi P, Verguts J, De Ridder D, Deprest J (2009) Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy—a single centre’s experience. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(9):1119–1125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Woelk JL, Casiano ER, Weaver AL, Gostout BS, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB (2013) The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 121:87–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P (2011) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204(4):360.e1–360.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Feiner B, O’Rourke P, Maher C (2012) A prospective comparison of two commercial mesh kits in the management of anterior vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23:279–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Halaska M, Maxova K, Sottner O, Svabik K, Mlcoch M, Kolarik D, Mala I, Krofta L, Halaska MJ (2012) A multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing sacrospinous fixation and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:301.e1–301.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Colombo M, Vitobello D, Proietti F, Milani R (2000) Randomised comparison of Burch colposuspension versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with stress urinary incontinence and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. BJOG 107(4):544–551

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Mörlin B, Hammarström M (2008) A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1593–1601

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kapoor DS, Nemcova M, Pantazis K, Brockman P, Bombieri L, Freeman RM (2010) Reoperation rate for traditional anterior vaginal repair: analysis of 207 cases with a median 4-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 21:27–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gotthart PT, Aigmueller T, Lang PFJ, Ralph G, Bjelic-Radisic V, Tamussino K (2012) Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse within 10 years of primary surgery for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23:1221–1224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Jonsson Funk M, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Pate V, Wu JM (2013) Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24:1279–1285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Hsu Y, DeLancey JOL (2006) Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 108:324–332

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L (2006) Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1837–1840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lowder JL, Park AJ, Ellison R, Ghetti C, Moalli P, Zyczynski H, Weber AM (2008) The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 111:152–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, Anger JT (2013) Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol 122:981–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Illinois Urogynecology, 1875 Dempster Street, Suite 665, Park Ridge, IL, 60068, USA

    Michael Moen, Michael Noone & Brett Vassallo

Authors
  1. Michael Moen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Noone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brett Vassallo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Moen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moen, M., Noone, M. & Vassallo, B. Anterior colporrhaphy: why surgeon performance is paramount. Int Urogynecol J 25, 857–862 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2345-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2345-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation