Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

There are large variations in reported frequency of recurrence and subsequent treatment after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. We hypothesized that native tissue repair entails high subjective satisfaction and good objective results, with low POP reoperation rates and few complications.

Methods

The 1-year results of 699 women having had native tissue repair for POP at our urogynecological unit from 2002 to 2005 were evaluated using an internal quality control database. A short-form physician check list for patient subjective and objective outcomes has been routinely used for 1-year controls since 2002, and results are registered longitudinally in the database. Patients’ medical records up to 2012 were reviewed for information on recurrent POP symptoms. A telephone interview was performed to assess POP recurrences potentially treated elsewhere. The cumulative incidence for reoperation was calculated comparing partial with complete (surgical treatment of all three compartments) native tissue repairs.

Results

Subjective satisfaction was stated by 94 % of patients at the 1-year control, and 84 % had stage 0–I in any compartment using the POP Quantification (POP-Q) system. The 5-year reoperation rate was significantly lower in the complete vs. the partial (2.6 % vs. 8.9 %) repair group. Cumulative incidence of reoperation showed a slight but constant increase over the years.

Conclusions

POP surgery using native tissue repair entails low reoperation rates with excellent subjective and objective results and should be the first choice in treating primary POP, providing use of adequate surgical technique.

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. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N (2010) Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 116(5):1096–1100. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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):501–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dallenbach P, Jungo Nancoz C, Eperon I, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M (2011) Incidence and risk factors for reoperation of surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1483-3

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gotthart PT, Aigmueller T, Lang PF, Ralph G, Bjelic-Radisic V, Tamussino K (2012) Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse within 10 years of primary surgery for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1736-9

  5. Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Smith V, Edwards SR, Clark AL (2008) Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198 (5). doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.051

  6. Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189(5):1261–1267. doi:10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00829-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME (2009) The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20(11):1313–1319. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0945-3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Spino C (2009) Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):600–609. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee U, Raz S (2011) Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: what is cure? Curr Urol Rep 12(1):62–67. doi:10.1007/s11934-010-0160-2

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4):CD004014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub4

  11. Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364(19):1826–1836. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1009521

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE (2009) Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 113(2 Pt 1):367–373. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195888d

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Donald A (1921) The operative treatment of prolapse of the uterus and vagina. J Obstet Gynaecol 312–326

  14. Dastur A, Tank PD (2010) Archibald Donald, William Fothergill and the Manchester Operation. J Obstet Gynaecol India 60(6):484–485

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Langmade CF, Oliver JA Jr (1986) Partial colpocleisis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 154(6):1200–1205

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, Monga A, Petri E, Rizk DE, Sand PK, Schaer GN (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29(1):4–20. doi:10.1002/nau.20798

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gray RJ (1988) A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat 16(3):1141–1154. doi:10.1214/Aos/1176350951

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rechberger T, Miotla P, Futyma K, Bartuzi A, Basta A, Oplawski M, Stangel-Wojcikiewicz K, Baranowski W, Doniec J, Rogowski A, Starczewski A, Nawrocka-Rutkowska J, Borowiak J, Sikora J, Bakon I, Magnucki J, Witek A, Drosdol A, Solecka A, Malinowski A, Ordon W, Jakimiuk A, Borucki W, Rodzoch R (2010) Risk factors of pelvic organ prolapsed in women qualified to reconstructive surgery—the Polish multicenter study. Ginekol Pol 81(11):821–827

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Morlin B, Hammarstrom M (2008) A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 19(12):1593–1601. doi:10.1007/s00192-008-0702-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Backe B, Lilleeng S (1993) Hysterectomy in Norway. Quality of data and clinical practice. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 113(8):971–974

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M, Pifarotti P, Meschia M, Cortese M (2005) Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. BJOG 112(1):107–111. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00332.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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):314–318. doi:10.1097/01.Aog.0000151990.08019.30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tegerstedt G, Hammarstrom M (2004) Operation for pelvic organ prolapse: a follow-up study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83(8):758–763

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Svenningsen R, Borstad E, Spydslaug AE, Sandvik L, Staff AC (2012) Occult incontinence as predictor for postoperative stress urinary incontinence following pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 23(7):843–849. doi:10.1007/S00192-012-1764-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shamliyan T, Wyman JF, Ramakrishnan R, Sainfort F, Kane RL (2012) Benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatment for urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 156(12):861–874. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Borstad E, Abdelnoor M, Staff AC, Kulseng-Hanssen S (2010) Surgical strategies for women with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 21(2):179–186. doi:10.1007/S00192-009-1007-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L, Gonzalez J (2008) Is there a difference in patient and physician quality of life evaluation in pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol J 19(4):517–520. doi:10.1007/S00192-007-0477-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. de Boer TA, Gietelink DA, Vierhout ME (2008) Discrepancies between physician interview and a patient self-assessment questionnaire after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 19(10):1349–1352. doi:10.1007/S00192-008-0656-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

S.H. Oversand: None.

A.C. Staff: None.

A.E. Spydslaug has received speaker fees and served as paid consultant for Pfizer.

R. Svenningsen has received speakers fees from Astellas. Travel grants from Pfizer, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson and Boston Scientific.

E. Borstad has received speakers fees from Pfizer, Astellas, and Lilly, and served on Advisory boards for Astellas and Lilly.

Funded by the institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevål, Pb 4956 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway

    Sissel H. Oversand, Anne Cathrine Staff, Anny E. Spydslaug, Rune Svenningsen & Ellen Borstad

  2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Anne Cathrine Staff & Rune Svenningsen

Authors
  1. Sissel H. Oversand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Cathrine Staff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anny E. Spydslaug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rune Svenningsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ellen Borstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sissel H. Oversand.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oversand, S.H., Staff, A.C., Spydslaug, A.E. et al. Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 25, 81–89 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2166-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2166-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation