Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Traditional McCall culdoplasty compared to a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension: anatomical and clinical outcomes

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

This study compared anatomical and clinical outcomes of traditional McCall culdoplasty versus a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension (DLS).

Methods

This retrospective study presents outcomes of 68 patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy and vaginal suspension for apical prolapse ≥ stage II according to the POP-Q score system, at, between January 2016 and February 2018. In 34 women vaginal cuff suspension was obtained with traditional McCall culdoplasty (McCall group), while in 34 women we performed a modified McCall, which consists of a double ligament suspension (DLS group), suspending the vaginal cuff to uterosacral ligaments and also to adnexal peduncles. Primary outcome was prolapse recurrence ≥ stage II according to the POP-Q system. Fisher’s, Mann-Whitney U and Student’s t tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results

There were no statistical differences among patients’ preoperative characteristics, operative time, blood loss or postoperative complications. Follow-up mean duration was 23.2 ± 6.7 and 22.4 ± 8.7 months in the McCall and DLS group, respectively. Prolapse recurrence occurred in 11 (32.3%) women in the McCall group versus 2 (5.9%) women in the DLS group (p < 0.05): among them, 2 patients (5.9%) in the McCall group and 1 (2.9%) in the DLS group required further treatment. Total vaginal length was 6.1 ± 0.9 cm in the McCall group versus 6.9 ± 0.7 cm in the DLS group (p < 0.001). No statistical difference in quality of life assessment was observed.

Conclusions

DLS group patients had better anatomical outcomes and lower recurrence rates than McCall group patients, without increasing operative time or complications. A prospective study with more cases is needed to confirm our data.

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. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Khunda A, Vashisht A, Cutner A. New procedures for uterine prolapse. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(3):363–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:437–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS. Cost of pel- Vic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:646–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Oversand SH, Staff AC, Spydslaug AE, Svennings S, Borstad E. Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urgynecol J. 2014;25:81–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Price N, Slack A, Jwarah E, Jackson S. The incidence of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse: an 11-year experience. Menopause Int. 2008;14(4):145–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jha S, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(5):517–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Vanspauwen R, Seman E, Dwyer P. Survey of current management of prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50(3):262–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheon C, Maher C. Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1873–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M, Pifarotti P, Meschia M, Cortese M. Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. BJOG. 2005;112:107–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Julian TM. The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;186:1472–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Novara L, Sgro LG, Pecchio S, Ottino L, Tomatis V. Biglia N. Transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension: an alternative to McCall culdoplasty in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2019;240:278–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;202(2):124–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Spelzini F, Frigerio M, Manodoro S, Interdonato ML, Cesana MC, Verri D, et al. Modified McCall culdoplasty versus Shull suspension in pelvic prolapse primary repair: a retrospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schiavi MC, Savone D, Di Mascio D, Di Tucci C, Perniola G, Zullo MA, et al. Long-term experience of vaginal vault prolapse prevention at hysterectomy time by modified McCall culdoplasty or Shull suspension: clinical, sexual and quality of life assessment after surgical intervention. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;223:113–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.02.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. McCall ML. Posterior culdeplasty; surgical correction of enterocele during vaginal hysterectomy; a preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol. 1957;10:595–602.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:103–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Yazdany T, Bhatia N. Uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: anatomy, outcome and surgical considerations. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20(5):484–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Silva WA, Pauls RN, Segal JL, et al. Uterosacral ligament vault suspension: five-year outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:255–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baden WF, Walker T. Surgical repair of vaginal defects. Philadelphia: The Lippincott Company Ed.; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cosma S, Petruzzelli P, Chiadò Fiorio Tin M, Parisi S, Olearo E, Fassio F, Zizzo R, Danese S, Benedetto C. Simplified laparoscopic sacropexy avoiding deep vaginal dissection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;143(2):239–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12632.

  24. Deo G, Bernasconi DP, Cola A, Palmieri S, Spelzini F, Milani R, et al. Long-term outcomes and five-year recurrence-free survival curves after native-tissue prolapse repair. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;147:238–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Manodoro S, Frigerio M, Milani R, Spelzini F. Tips and tricks for uterosacral ligament suspension: how to avoid ureteral injury. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:161–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Morgan DM, Rogers MA, Huebner M, Wei JT, Delancey JO. Heterogeneity in anatomic outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation for prolapse: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1424–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors thank Dimitra Barla for her English language editing service in the final revision of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, “Regina Montis Regalis” Hospital, ASLCN1, Via San Rocchetto 99, cap 12084, Mondovì, CN, Italy

    Silvia Parisi, Antonia Novelli, Elena Olearo, Alessandro Basile & Andrea Puppo

  2. Division of Gynecology Oncology, Department of Women and Child Health, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy

    Antonia Novelli

  3. Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospedale Santa Croce e Carle, Cuneo, Italy

    Andrea Puppo

Authors
  1. Silvia Parisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonia Novelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elena Olearo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alessandro Basile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrea Puppo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Silvia Parisi: manuscript writing, data collection and statistical analysis; Antonia Novelli: project development and manuscript writing; Elena Olearo: reviewing and editing the manuscript; Alessandro Basile: data collection; Andrea Puppo: supervision and validation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonia Novelli.

Ethics declarations

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of Fig. 1.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parisi, S., Novelli, A., Olearo, E. et al. Traditional McCall culdoplasty compared to a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension: anatomical and clinical outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 31, 2147–2153 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04403-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04403-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation