Vol 92, No 10 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-08-06

open access

Page views 6647
Article views/downloads 872
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Preperitoneal laparoscopic lateral repair in pelvic organ prolapse — a novel approach

Pawel Szymanowski1, Wioletta K. Szepieniec1, Hanna Szweda1
Pubmed: 34541640
Ginekol Pol 2021;92(10):689-694.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to present a novel approach for a paravaginal defect treatment. This extraperitoneal approach can be performed in patients with comorbidities and on obese patients. The main advantages are: not requiring the pneumoperitoneum and the Trendelenburg position and the avoidance of peritoneal adhesions.
Material and methods: This study presents the results in 27 patients with cystocele caused by a lateral defect pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP Q) stage II or higher. The procedure was performed with a modified Richardson and Burch technique using a preperitoneal approach. Three follow-up examinations were conducted two, six weeks, and six months after the operation. A quality of life assessment was conducted before and after surgery using the short form of the PFIQ‐7.
Results: All patients had a POP Q II cystocele and 59% had concomitant stress urinary incontinence. In all patients cystocele was reduce to asymptomatic POP Q stage I or 0. Mean operation time was approximately 80 minutes. In six months post-operation follow up, one case of recurrence was noted. The patients’ quality of life revealed a statistical improvement from an average of 6.8 points before, to an average of 0.7 points after the operation (p < 0.05) in the PFIQ-7.
Conclusions: Preperitoneal laparoscopic lateral repair is a relatively fast procedure and it is also feasible for obese women and for patients with a cardiopulmonary risk. Neither the Trendelenburg position nor the pneumoperitoneum are required. Postoperatively, the patients witnessed a reduction of the cystocele and complaints connected with their previous condition.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Barber M, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal. 2013; 24(11): 1783–1790.
  2. Perucchini D, De Lancey JO. Functional anatomy of the pelvic floor and lower urinary tract. In: Baessler K, Schüssler B, Burgio KL, Moore K, Stanton SL. ed. Pelvic floor re-education. Principles and practice. Springer 2008: 3–21.
  3. Hosni MM, El-Feky AEH, Agur WI, et al. Evaluation of three different surgical approaches in repairing paravaginal support defects: a comparative trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 288(6): 1341–1348.
  4. Richardson AC, Edmonds PB, Williams NL. Treatment of stress urinary incontinence due to paravaginal fascial defect. Obstet Gynecol. 1981; 57(3): 357–362.
  5. Chinthakanan O, Miklos JR, Moore RD. Laparoscopic paravaginal defect repair: surgical technique and a literature review. Surg Technol Int. 2015; 27: 173–183.
  6. Petros PE, Ulmsten UI. An integral theory of female urinary incontinence. Experimental and clinical considerations. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1990; 153: 7–31.
  7. Tiras MB, Sendag F, Dilek U, et al. Laparoscopic burch colposuspension: comparison of effectiveness of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal techniques. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004; 116(1): 79–84.
  8. von Theobald P, Guillaumin D, Lévy G. Laparoscopic preperitoneal colposuspension for stress incontinence in women. Technique and results of 37 procedures. Surg Endosc. 1995; 9(11): 1189–1192.
  9. Barber MD, Lambers A, Visco AG, et al. Effect of patient position on clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96(1): 18–22.
  10. 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(1): 103–113.
  11. Serlin DC, Heidelbaugh JJ, Stoffel JT. Urinary retention in adults: evaluation and initial management. Am Fam Physician. 2018; 98(8): 496–503.
  12. World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. WHO technical report series 894. , Geneva 2000.
  13. Pham CH, Collier ZJ, Webb AB, et al. How long are burn patients really NPO in the perioperative period and can we effectively correct the caloric deficit using an enteral feeding "Catch-up" protocol? Burns. 2018; 44(8): 2006–2010.
  14. Bo K, Berghmans B, Morkved S, van Ka. Evidence-based physical therapy for the pelvic floor 2nd edition. Bridging science and clinical practice. Churchill Livingstone, London 2014.
  15. Jo YYi, Kim JiY, Chang YJ, et al. The effect of equal ratio ventilation on oxygenation, respiratory mechanics, and cerebral perfusion pressure during laparoscopy in the trendelenburg position. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016; 26(3): 221–225.
  16. Assad OM, El Sayed AA, Khalil MA. Comparison of volume-controlled ventilation and pressure-controlled ventilation volume guaranteed during laparoscopic surgery in Trendelenburg position. J Clin Anesth. 2016; 34: 55–61.
  17. Mann C, Boccara G, Pouzeratte Y, et al. The relationship among carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum, vasopressin release, and hemodynamic changes. Anesth Analg. 1999; 89(2): 278–283.
  18. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. https://www.fda.gov/media/81123/download (2021-02-24).
  19. FDA's activities: urogynecologic surgical mesh. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/urogynecologic-surgical-mesh-implants/fdas-activities-urogynecologic-surgical-mesh (2021-04-17).
  20. Śliwa J, Kryza-Ottou A, Zimmer-Stelmach A, et al. A new technique of laparoscopic fixation of the uterus to the anterior abdominal wall with the use of overfascial mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31(10): 2165–2167.
  21. Heidenreich W. Williams-Richardson vaginopexy. An abdominal suspension operation in prolapse and extensive vaginal descent [article in German]. Zentralbl Gynakol. 1997; 119(8): 378–382.
  22. Miklos JR, Kohli N. Laparoscopic paravaginal repair plus burch colposuspension: review and descriptive technique. Urology. 2000; 56(6 Suppl 1): 64–69.
  23. Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, et al. A 3-year follow-up after anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2016; 123(1): 136–142.
  24. Dietz HP, Pang S, Korda A, et al. Paravaginal defects: a comparison of clinical examination and 2D/3D ultrasound imaging. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 45(3): 187–190.
  25. Ubertazzi EP, Soderini HFE, Saavedra Sanchez AJM, et al. Long-term outcomes of transvaginal mesh (TVM) In patients with pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-year follow-up. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 225: 90–94.