Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
International Urogynecology Journal
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal 10/2020

18.06.2020 | Clinical Opinion

Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair

verfasst von: Andrea Braga, Maurizio Serati, Stefano Salvatore, Marco Torella, Roberto Pasqualetti, Andrea Papadia, Giorgio Caccia

Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 10/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The lifetime risk of women for undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is estimated to be 11–19%, and 30% of these women will require subsequent reoperation over time. Following hysterectomy, 3.6 per 1,000 person-years need surgical correction of prolapse, and in two-thirds of these cases multi-compartment prolapse is present. In the last decades, vaginally synthetic meshes were widely used in pelvic reconstructive surgery. However, after the decision of the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 to stop selling all surgical mesh devices for transvaginal prolapse repair, native tissue (NT) vaginal repair seems to regain an important role in pelvic reconstructive surgery. In the literature, various surgical techniques have been described for apical repair, but the best surgical approach is still to be proven. This paper analyzes the current evidence from recent literature on NT vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) repair, with special focus on the safety and efficacy of the various vaginal techniques.
Literatur
1.
Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26.PubMed
2.
Milsom I, Altman D, Cartwright R, et al. (2017) Epidemiology of urinary incontinence (UI) and other lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and anal (AI) incontinence. In: Abrams C, Khoury W (eds) 6th International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication.
3.
Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1783–90.PubMed
4.
Betschart C, Cervigni M, Contreras Ortiz O, et al. Management of apical compartment prolapse (uterine and vault prolapse): a FIGO Working Group Report. Neurourol Urodynamics. 2017;36:507–13.
5.
6.
Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):13–21.PubMed
7.
Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1160–6.PubMed
8.
Robinson D, Thiagamoorthy G, Cardozo L. Post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Maturitas. 2018;107:39–43.PubMed
9.
Paz-Levy D, Yohay D, Neymeyer J, et al. Native tissue repair for central compartment prolapse: a narrative review. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:181–9.PubMed
10.
Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1815–33.PubMed
11.
Maher C, Baessler K, Barber MD, et al. (2017) Pelvic organ prolapse surgery. In: Abrams C, Khoury W (eds) 6th International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication.
12.
Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in US women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278–83.PubMed
13.
14.
Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Silver Spring (MD): FDA. Available at: http://​www.​fda.​gov/​. Retrieved 7 Jan 2012
15.
ACOG Committee Opinion No.513. Vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1459–64.
16.
AUGS (American Urogynecological Society). Position statement on restriction of surgical options for pelvic floor disorders. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):199–201.
17.
18.
19.
Clemons JL, Weinstein M, Guess MK, et al. Impact of the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update on AUGS members’ use of synthetic mesh and biologic grafts in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):191–8.PubMed
20.
21.
Wallace SL, Syan R, Sokol ER. Surgery for apical vaginal prolapse after hysterectomy transvaginal mesh-based repair. Urol Clin N Am. 2019;46:103–11.
22.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. (2017) Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10(10):CD012376.
23.
Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:44–55.PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Hemming C, Constable L, Goulao B, et al. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs. Health Technol Assess. 2020;24(13):1–220.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
27.
Jeon MJ. Surgical decision making for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based approach. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2019;62(5):307–12.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
29.
Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Aigmueller T, Riss P, Dungl A, et al. Long-term follow-up after vaginal sacrospinous fixation: patient satisfaction, anatomical results and quality of life. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(7):965.PubMed
31.
Propst K, O'Sullivan DM, Steinberg AC. Randomized double-blind trial of short- versus long-acting analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(1):123–30.PubMed
32.
Beer M, Kuhn A. Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;119:144–55.PubMed
33.
Campbell J, Pedroletti C, Ekhed L, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after sacrospinous fixation of vault prolapse with a suturing device: a retrospective national cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):821–9.PubMed
34.
Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, et al. A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183(6):1365–73.PubMed
35.
Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(2):124.PubMed
36.
Milani R, Frigerio M, Cola A, et al. Outcomes of transvaginal high uterosacral ligaments suspension: over 500-patient single-center study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24:203–6.PubMed
37.
38.
Gustilo-Ashby AM, Jelovsek E, Barber MD, et al. The incidence of ureteral obstruction and the value of intraoperative cystoscopy during vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1478–85.PubMed
39.
40.
Houlihan S, Kim-Fine S, Birch C, et al. Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):611–21.PubMed
41.
Silva WA, Pauls RN, Segal JL, et al. Uterosacral ligament vault suspension: five-year outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:255–63.PubMed
42.
Shull BL, Capen CV, Riggs MW, et al. Bilateral attachment of the vaginal cuff to iliococcygeus fascia: an effective method of cuff suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168(6 Pt 1):1669–74.PubMed
43.
Maher CF, Murray CJ, Carey MP, et al. Iliococcygeus or sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(1):40–4.PubMed
44.
Serati M, Braga A, Bogani G, et al. Iliococcygeus fixation for the treatment of apical vaginal prolapse: efficacy and safety at 5 years of follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(7):1007–12.PubMed
45.
Milani R, Cesana MC, Spelzini F, et al. Iliococcygeus fixation or abdominal sacral colpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:279–84.PubMed
46.
Meeks GR, Washburne JF, McGehee RP, et al. Repair of vaginal vault prolapse by suspension of the vagina to iliococcygeus (prespinous) fascia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171(6):1444–52; discussion 1452–1454.PubMed
47.
Webb MJ, Aronson MP, Ferguson LK, et al. Posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: primary repair in 693 patients. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92(2):281–5.PubMed
48.
Colombo M, Milani R. Sacrospinous ligament fixation and modified McCall culdoplasty during vaginal hysterectomy for advanced uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(1):13–20.PubMed
49.
Spelzini F, Frigerio M, Manodoro S, et al. Modified McCall culdoplasty versus Shull suspension in pelvic prolapse primary repair: a retrospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):65–71.PubMed
50.
Niblock K, Bailie E, McCracken GK, et al. Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse. Gynaecol Surg. 2017;14(1):3.
51.
Crisp CC, Book NM, Cunkelman JA, et al. Body image, regret, and satisfaction 24 weeks after colpocleisis: a multicenter study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(3):132–5.PubMed
52.
Sung VW, Weitzen S, Sokol ER, et al. Effect of patient age on increasing morbidity and mortality following urogynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1411–7.PubMed
53.
Mueller MG, Ellimootil C, Abernethy MG, et al. Colpocleisis: a safe, minimally invasive option for pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(1):30–3.PubMed
54.
FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Siddique S, et al. Colpocleisis: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:261–71.PubMed
55.
Dessie SG, Shapiro A, Haviland MJ, et al. Obliterative versus reconstructive prolapse repair for women older than 70: is there an optimal approach? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23:23–6.PubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Vij M, Bombiri L, Dua A, et al. Long-term follow-up after colpocleisis: regret, bowel, and bladder function. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(6):811–5.PubMed
57.
Petcharopas A, Wongtra-Ngan S, Chinthakanan O. Quality of life following vaginal reconstructive versus obliterative surgery for treating advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(8):1141–6.PubMed
58.
Anglim B, O’Sullivan O, O’Reilly B. How do patients and surgeons decide on uterine preservation or hysterectomy in apical prolapse? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:1075–9.PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair
verfasst von
Andrea Braga
Maurizio Serati
Stefano Salvatore
Marco Torella
Roberto Pasqualetti
Andrea Papadia
Giorgio Caccia
Publikationsdatum
18.06.2020
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
International Urogynecology Journal / Ausgabe 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04368-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 10/2020

International Urogynecology Journal 10/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Prolapse repair in the elderly patient: contemporary trends and 30-day perioperative complications

Original Article

Surgical approach, complications, and reoperation rates of combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse surgery

Original Article

Factors involved in prolapse recurrence one year after anterior vaginal repair

Original Article

Does concurrent posterior repair for an asymptomatic rectocele reduce the risk of surgical failure in patients undergoing sacrocolpopexy?

Original Article

Electromyography of pelvic floor muscles with true differential versus faux differential electrode configuration

Commentary

A commentary on “Vaginal hysterectomy with anterior and posterior repair for pelvic organ prolapse under local anesthesia: results of a pilot study”

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

17.04.2024 | Postoperative nausea and vomiting | Nachrichten

Hochrisiko-Eingriffe für postoperative Übelkeit

17.04.2024 | Mammakarzinom | Nachrichten

Adjuvante Brustkrebstherapie: Doppelt hält besser

16.04.2024 | Maligne primäre ZNS-Tumoren | Nachrichten

Manche Gestagene können das Risiko für Meningeome erhöhen

16.04.2024 | Stillen, Säuglingsnahrung, Beikost | Nachrichten

Stillende Frauen haben geringeres kardiovaskuläres Risiko
weitere anzeigen

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen