Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term outcomes after native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

We aimed to compare the outcomes of native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment. We hypothesized that the addition of graft would result in superior anatomic and functional outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review of posterior repairs between 2001 and 2008 was performed to compare the anatomic and functional outcomes between native tissue and graft-augmented techniques. Mann–Whitney and chi-square tests were used. Power calculation determined that 32 subjects were needed in each group.

Results

One hundred twenty-four native tissue and 69 graft-augmented repairs were performed with a median follow-up of 35.8 months (range, 6 to 157 months). Anatomic success was similar for native tissue vs. graft (Bp < −1, 86% vs. 80% and Bp ≤ 0, 97% vs. 97%; all p > 0.05). Postoperative splinting and incomplete evacuation was greater in the graft group (splinting, 85% vs. 68%; p = 0.04 and incomplete evacuation, 85% vs. 64%; p = 0.03).

Conclusion

Long-term success of posterior repair is high. Graft augmentation does not appear to improve anatomic or functional outcomes.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hendrix SL et al (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women's Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(6):1160–1166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shorvon PJ et al (1989) Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 30(12):1737–1749

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Olsen AL et al (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89(4):501–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Erekson EA et al (2010) The association between stage II or greater posterior prolapse and bothersome obstructive bowel symptoms. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 16(1):59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cundiff GW et al (1998) An anatomic and functional assessment of the discrete defect rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179(6 Pt 1):1451–1456, discussion 1456–1457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Porter WE et al (1999) The anatomic and functional outcomes of defect-specific rectocele repairs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181(6):1353–1358, discussion 1358–1359

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L (1999) Outcome after rectovaginal fascia reattachment for rectocele repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181(6):1360–1363, discussion 1363–1364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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):320–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sardeli C et al (2007) Outcome of site-specific fascia repair for rectocele. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 86(8):973–977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kahn MA, Stanton SL (1997) Posterior colporrhaphy: its effects on bowel and sexual function. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104(1):82–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Maher CF et al (2004) Midline rectovaginal fascial plication for repair of rectocele and obstructed defecation. Obstet Gynecol 104(4):685–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Altman D et al (2005) Functional and anatomic outcome after transvaginal rectocele repair using collagen mesh: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 48(6):1233–1241, discussion 1241–1242; author reply 1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Altman D et al (2006) A three-year prospective assessment of rectocele repair using porcine xenograft. Obstet Gynecol 107(1):59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Biehl RC et al (2008) Site-specific rectocele repair with dermal graft augmentation: comparison of porcine dermal xenograft (pelvicol(r)) and human dermal allograft. Surg Technol Int 17:174–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gabriel B et al (2007) Surgical repair of posterior compartment prolapse: preliminary results of a novel transvaginal procedure using a four-armed polypropylene mesh with infracoccygeal and pararectal suspension. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Aug 30:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kohli N, Miklos JR (2003) Dermal graft-augmented rectocele repair. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14(2):146–149

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lim YN et al (2007) A long-term review of posterior colporrhaphy with Vypro 2 mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(9):1053–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Milani R et al (2005) Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. BJOG 112(1):107–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sung VW et al (2008) Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 112(5):1131–1142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Taylor GB et al (2008) Posterior repair with perforated porcine dermal graft. Int Braz J Urol 34(1)):84–88, discussion 89–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sentilhes L, Descamps P, Marpeau L (2009) Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 113(4):952, author reply 952

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Trabuco EC, Klingele CJ, Gebhart JB (2007) Xenograft use in reconstructive pelvic surgery: a review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(5):555–563

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paraiso MF et al (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195(6):1762–1771

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zheng F et al (2005) Improved surgical outcome by modification of porcine dermal collagen implant in abdominal wall reconstruction in rats. Neurourol Urodyn 24(4):362–368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cole E, Gomelsky A, Dmochowski RR (2003) Encapsulation of a porcine dermis pubovaginal sling. J Urol 170(5):1950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gandhi S et al (2005) Histopathologic changes of porcine dermis xenografts for transvaginal suburethral slings. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192(5):1643–1648

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Barber MD et al (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):600–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis SJ, Heaton KW (1997) Stool form scale as a useful guide to intestinal transit time. Scand J Gastroenterol 32(9):920–924

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Abramov Y et al (2005) Site-specific rectocele repair compared with standard posterior colporrhaphy. Obstet Gynecol 105(2):314–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Reproductive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Cara L. Grimes, Jasmine Tan-Kim & Emily S. Lukacz

  2. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

    Cara L. Grimes, Jasmine Tan-Kim, Emily L. Whitcomb & Shawn A. Menefee

  3. UCSD Women’s Pelvic Medicine Center, 9350 Campus Point Drive, Suite 2A, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA

    Cara L. Grimes

Authors
  1. Cara L. Grimes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jasmine Tan-Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily L. Whitcomb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emily S. Lukacz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shawn A. Menefee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cara L. Grimes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grimes, C.L., Tan-Kim, J., Whitcomb, E.L. et al. Long-term outcomes after native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment. Int Urogynecol J 23, 597–604 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1607-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1607-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation