Top

Open Access 13-11-2024 | Amenorrhoea | Urogynecology

Davydov-Moore vaginoplasty in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: sexual and surgical outcomes

Authors: Magdalena Piróg, Magdalena Bednarczyk, Katarzyna Barabasz, Olga Kacalska-Janssen, Robert Jach

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare surgical and sexual outcomes after Davidov-Moore vaginoplasty in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH).

Methods

In the case-series study, we described seven women, at a median age of 22.6 ± and BMI 22.8 ± 2.3 kg/m². We measured peri- and postsurgical parameters, including surgery-related neovaginal length and sexual initiation time. Sexual outcomes were measured using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) before and 6 months after vaginoplasty.

Results

All surgical procedures were performed successfully, with one minor perioperative bleeding. The mean time of vaginoplasty was 82.1 min and the mean duration of hospitalization was six days. After a 6-month follow-up, vaginal length was 8.1-times longer than before surgery (10 vs. 81 mm). The time from the surgery to the initiation of vaginal intercourse was between 17 to 22 weeks. The mean FSFI score indicated good results, with no women below 23 score, and was 4.3- times higher when compared with the pre-surgical one (6.7 vs 29.1). Contrary to the FSFI score before surgery, the post-surgical FSFI revealed higher scores in all six different domains: desire (2.5-times), arousal (4.1-times), lubrication (3.8-times), orgasm (3.4-times), satisfaction (3.3-times) and comfort (11-times).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic Davydov-Moore vaginoplasty might be considered as a safe procedure with satisfactory anatomic and sexual outcomes. It should be considered as a treatment option for the creation of neovagina in women with MRKH.

Herlin M, Bjørn AM, Rasmussen M, Trolle B, Petersen MB (2016) “Prevalence and patient characteristics of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: a nationwide registry-based study,” (in eng). Hum Reprod 31(10):2384–2390. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew220CrossRefPubMed

Aittomäki K, Eroila H, Kajanoja P (2001) “A population-based study of the incidence of Müllerian aplasia in Finland,” (in eng). Fertil Steril 76(3):624–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01963-xCrossRefPubMed

Liszewska-Kapłon M, Strózik M, Kotarski Ł, Bagłaj M, Hirnle L (2020) “Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome as an interdisciplinary problem,” (in eng). Adv Clin Exp Med 29(4):505–511. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/118850CrossRefPubMed

Facchin F et al (2021) “Psychological impact and health-related quality-of-life outcomes of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: A systematic review and narrative synthesis,” (in eng). J Health Psychol 26(1):26–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105319901308CrossRefPubMed

Zhang X, Qiu J, Ding J, Hua K (2019) “Comparison of neovaginoplasty using acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft or Interceed in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome,” (in eng). Arch Gynecol Obstet 300(6):1633–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05352-0CrossRefPubMed

Brännström M (2015) “The Swedish uterus transplantation project: the story behind the Swedish uterus transplantation project,” (in eng). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 94(7):675–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12661CrossRefPubMed

Chen N, Song S, Bao X, Zhu L (2022) “Update on Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome,” (in eng). Front Med 16(6):859–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-022-0969-3CrossRefPubMed

Brucker SY et al (2023) “Uterine allograft removal by total laparoscopic hysterectomy after successful cesarean delivery in a living-donor uterus recipient with uterovaginal agenesis (MRKHS),” (in eng). Arch Gynecol Obstet 307(3):827–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06796-7CrossRefPubMed

Sabatucci I et al (2019) “Treatment of the Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome with autologous in vitro cultured vaginal tissue: descriptive study of long-term results and patient outcomes,” (in eng). BJOG 126(1):123–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15477CrossRefPubMed

10.

M. J. Moore RD, Chinthakanan O, "Surgical procedures II: perineoplasty, vaginoplasty, colpoperineoplasty (“vaginal rejuvenation”).

11.

Female Genital Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery. Female Genital Plastic and Cosmetic Surgery," ed: New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2016, pp. First Edition; pp. 88–101

12.

Fedele L, Frontino G, Restelli E, Ciappina N, Motta F, Bianchi S (2010) “Creation of a neovagina by Davydov’s laparoscopic modified technique in patients with Rokitansky syndrome,” (in eng). Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(1):33.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.08.035CrossRefPubMed

13.

Giannesi A, Marchiole P, Benchaib M, Chevret-Measson M, Mathevet P, Dargent D (2005) “Sexuality after laparoscopic Davydov in patients affected by congenital complete vaginal agenesis associated with uterine agenesis or hypoplasia,” (in eng). Hum Reprod 20(10):2954–2957. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei152CrossRefPubMed

14.

Morcel K, Lavoué V, Jaffre F, Paniel BJ, Rouzier R (2013) “Sexual and functional results after creation of a neovagina in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: a comparison of nonsurgical and surgical procedures,” (in eng). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 169(2):317–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.03.005CrossRefPubMed

15.

Martens L, Tannenbaum L, Van Kuijk SMJ, Notten KJB, Kluivers KB (2024) “Laparoscopic Davydov vs laparoscopic Vecchietti neovaginoplasty in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome; a systematic review and meta-analysis,” (in eng). Fertil Steril 121(4):679–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.12.015CrossRefPubMed

16.

Liu X, Liu M, Hua K, Li B, Guo SW (2009) “Sexuality after laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome,” (in eng). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 16(6):720–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2009.07.018CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ding JX, Chen LM, Zhang XY, Zhang Y, Hua KQ (2015) “Sexual and functional outcomes of vaginoplasty using acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft or laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty: a comparative study,” (in eng). Hum Reprod 30(3):581–589. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu341CrossRefPubMed

18.

Zhao X, Wang R, Wang Y, Li L, Zhang H, Kang S (2015) “Comparison of two laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty techniques in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome,” (in eng). Int Urogynecol J 26(8):1201–1207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2675-zCrossRefPubMed

19.

Wu J et al (2016) “Comparison of Two Techniques of Laparoscopy-Assisted Peritoneal Vaginoplasty,” (in eng). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 23(3):346–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.10.015CrossRefPubMed

20.

Baruch Y et al (2020) “Lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome after neo-vagina creation by Davydov’s procedure,” (in eng). Int Urogynecol J 31(12):2529–2533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04311-7CrossRefPubMed

21.

Zhang M et al (2024) “High AMH levels are associated with gestational hypertension in patients with PCOS who underwent IVF/ICSI-ET,” (in eng). J Clin Endocrinol Metab. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgae324CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Yang X et al (2022) “Comparison of the modified laparoscopic Vecchietti and Davydov colpoplasty techniques in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: A long-term follow-up analysis,” (in eng). J Obstet Gynaecol Res 48(7):1930–1937. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.15262CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kim-Fine S et al (2021) “Relationship of postoperative vaginal anatomy and sexual function: a systematic review with meta-analysis,” (in eng). Int Urogynecol J 32(8):2125–2134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04829-4CrossRefPubMed

24.

Dabaghi S, Zandi M, Ilkhani M (2019) “Sexual satisfaction in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome after surgical and non-surgical techniques: a systematic review,” (in eng). Int Urogynecol J 30(3):353–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3854-5CrossRefPubMed

25.

Zhou Q, Zhang X, Li Y, Hua K, Ding J (2023) “Comparison of Sheares vaginoplasty, vaginoplasty using acellular porcine small intestinal submucosa graft and laparoscopic peritoneal vaginoplasty in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome,” (in eng). Int Urogynecol J 34(2):499–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05163-zCrossRefPubMed

26.

Bianchi S, Frontino G, Ciappina N, Restelli E, Fedele L (2011) “Creation of a neovagina in Rokitansky syndrome: comparison between two laparoscopic techniques,” (in eng). Fertil Steril 95(3):1098–100.e1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.11.032CrossRefPubMed

Title: Davydov-Moore vaginoplasty in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: sexual and surgical outcomes
Authors: Magdalena Piróg
Magdalena Bednarczyk
Katarzyna Barabasz
Olga Kacalska-Janssen
Robert Jach
Publication date: 13-11-2024
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Amenorrhoea
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07830-6

Keynote series | Spotlight on menopause

Menopause
Video Series

Menopause can have a significant impact on the body, with effects ranging beyond the endocrine and reproductive systems. Learn about the systemic effects of menopause, so you can help patients in your clinics through the transition.

Prof. Martha Hickey

Dr. Claudia Barth

Dr. Samar El Khoudary

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Watch now