4.2 Article

A 2-year anatomical and functional assessment of transvaginal rectocele repair using a polypropylene mesh

Journal

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 100-105

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-005-1317-2

Keywords

rectocele; vaginal surgery; sacrospinous suspension; mesh

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reports the 2-year results of an original technique for rectocele repair by the vaginal route, using a combined sacrospinous suspension and a polypropylene mesh. Twenty-six women were successively operated between October 2000 and February 2003. Mean age was 63.7 years [range 35-92]. 19 women had had previous pelvic surgery for prolapse and/or urinary incontinence (73.1%), but none had had a previous rectocele repair. Patients underwent physical examination staging of prolapse in the international pelvic organ prolapse staging system. Eleven women had stage 2 posterior vaginal wall prolapse (42.3%), seven had stage 3 (26.9%) and eight had stage 4 (30.8%). The procedure included a bilateral sacrospinous suspension and a polypropylene mesh (GyneMesh, Gynecare, Ethicon France) attached from the sacrospinous ligaments to the perineal body. We did not perform any associated posterior fascial repair, nor myorraphy. Patients were followed up for 10-44 months, with a median follow-up (+/- SD) of 22.7 +/- 9.2 months. Functional results and sexual function were evaluated using the PFDI, the PFIQ and the PISQ-12 self-questionnaires. Twenty-five women returned for follow-up (96.2%). At follow-up, 24 women were cured (92.3%) and one had asymptomatic stage 2 rectocele. All the patients but one had symptoms and impact on quality of life improved. No postoperative infection of the mesh or rectovaginal fistula was found, but there were three vaginal erosions (12%) and one out of 13 had de novo dyspareunia (7.7%).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available