Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy using the Capio suture-capturing device versus traditional technique: feasibility and outcome

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study compares the feasibility and outcome of sacrospinous colpopexy for treating vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) performed by either the traditional technique or a simplified procedure using the Capio™ suture-capturing device.

Materials and methods

Eighty-six patients with VVP were included in the study. Forty-two patients were treated by traditional sacrospinous colpopexy (TSC group) and 44 patients were treated by the modified technique using the Capio device (CSC group). Additional procedures were performed to restore concomitant pelvic floor defects.

Results

The mean (±SD) total operative time was significantly lower in the CSC group (71.7 ± 24.5 min) than in the TSC group (105.5 ± 31.5 min; p < 0.001); the intraoperative blood loss was higher in the TSC group than in the CSC group. In the CSC group, the mean operative time required to perform sacrospinous colpopexy was 21.4 ± 3.2 min. In patients who underwent only sacrospinous colpopexy, the time required to perform surgery was significantly lower in the CSC group (20.9 ± 3.3 min) than in the TSC group (39.1 ± 5.2 min; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical complications between the two study groups. The objective and subjective success rates at 3-year follow-up were 88.1 and 92.9 % in the TSC group while in the CSC group they were 86.4 and 92.9 %.

Conclusion

The modified technique of sacrospinous ligament fixation using the Capio device reduces the operative time and blood loss when compared to the traditional 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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Keshavarz H, Hillis SD, Kieke BA, Marchbanks PA (2002) Hysterectomy surveillance—United States, 1994–1999. MMWR Surveill Summ 51:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mant J, Painter R, Vessey M (1997) Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford family planning association study. BJOG 104:579–585

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Toozs-Hobson P, Boos K, Cardozo L (1998) Management of vaginal vault prolapse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105:13–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V et al (1999) True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse: thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med 44:679–684

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barrington JW, Edwards G (2000) Posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 11:241–245

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dällenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Jacob S, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M (2008) Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1623–1629

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. DeLancey JO (2005) The hidden epidemic of pelvic floor dysfunction: achievable goals for improved prevention and treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1488–1495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Swift SE (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Richter K (1968) Die chirurgische Anatomie der Vaginae.fixatio sacrospinalis vaginalis: ein Beitrag zur operativen Behandlung des Scheidenblindsack prolapses. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 28:321–327

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kearney R, DeLancey JOL (2003) Selecting suspension points and excising the vagina during Michigan fourwall sacrospinous suspension. Obstet Gynecol 101:325–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang Y, Wang D, Li Y, Liang Z, Xu H (2011) Laparoscopic sacrospinous ligament fixation for uterovaginal prolapse: experience with 93 cases. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22:83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nichols DH (1982) Sacrospinous fixation for massive eversion of the vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 142:901–904

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Morley GW, DeLancey JO (1988) Sacrospinous ligament fixation for eversion of the vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 158:872–881

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Carey MP, Slack MC (1994) Transvaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vault and marked uterovaginal prolapse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:536–540

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hardiman PJ, Drutz HP (1996) Sacrospinous vault suspension and abdominal colposacropexy: success rates and complications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:612–616

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Paraiso MF, Ballard LA, Walters MD, Lee JC, Mitchinson AR (1996) Pelvic support defects and visceral and sexual function in women treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension and pelvic reconstruction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1423–1431

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Meschia M, Bruschi F, Amicarelli F, Pifarotti P, Marchini M, Crosignani PG (1999) The sacrospinous vaginal vault suspension: critical analysis of outcomes. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 10:155–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:20–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aigmueller T, Riss P, Dungl A, Bauer H (2008) Long-term follow-up after vaginal sacrospinous fixation: patient satisfaction, anatomical results and quality of life. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:965–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2010) Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21:523–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Maroto JR, Gorraiz MO, Bueno JJ, Pérez LG, Bru JJ, Chaparro LP (2009) Transobturator adjustable tape (TOA) permits to correct postoperatively the tension applied in stress incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:797–805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Petri E, Ashok K (2011) Sacrospinous vaginal fixation-current status. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 90:429–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ouzaid I, Rhouma SB, de Tayrac R, Costa P, Prudhomme M, Delmas V (2010) Mini-invasive posterior sacrospinous ligament fixation using the CAPIO needle driver: an anatomical study. Prog Urol 20:515–519

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schlesinger RE (1997) Vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation with the Autosuture Endostitch device. Am J Obstet Gynecol 176:1358–1362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lind LR, Choe J, Bhatia NN (1997) An in-line suturing device to simplify sacrospinous vaginal vault suspension. Obstet Gynecol 89:129–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Veronikis DK, Nichols DH (1997) Ligature carrier specifically designed for transvaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 89:478–481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chou LY, Chang DY, Sheu BC, Huang SC, Chen SY, Chang WC (2010) Clinical outcome of transvaginal sacrospinous fixation with the Veronikis ligature carrier in genital prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 152:108–110

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Ferrero S, Mancuso S, Costantini S (2012) Feasibility and outcome of vaginal paravaginal repair using the Capio suture-capturing device. Int Urogynecol J 23:341–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Martino Hospital and National Institute for Cancer Research, University of Genoa, Largo Rosanna Benzi 1, 16132, Genoa, Italy

    Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore, Franco Alessandri, Valentino Remorgida, Pier Luigi Venturini & Simone Ferrero

Authors
  1. Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franco Alessandri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valentino Remorgida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pier Luigi Venturini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Simone Ferrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umberto Leone Roberti Maggiore.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leone Roberti Maggiore, U., Alessandri, F., Remorgida, V. et al. Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy using the Capio suture-capturing device versus traditional technique: feasibility and outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287, 267–274 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2540-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2540-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation