Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 5/2016

01-05-2016 | Original Article

Posterior vaginal compartment repairs: Where are the main anatomical defects?

Authors: Bernard T. Haylen, Sushen Naidoo, Stephen J. Kerr, Chin H. Yong, Warwick Birrell

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 5/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Traditionally, it has been believed that posterior vaginal compartment prolapse was largely due to defects in the rectovaginal fascia, with surgical repairs concentrating on addressing this defect. We aimed to determine the relative size of defects at the different vaginal levels (I–III) following a large number of posterior vaginal compartment repairs (PRs) to determine whether this traditional viewpoint is still appropriate.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study of 300 consecutive PRs, mostly following prior or concomitant hysterectomy, two sets of markers of posterior compartment prolapse were used to measure anatomical defects at levels I–III: (i) from Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system points C, Ap, Bp, and genital hiatus (GH), and from Posterior Repair Quantification (PR-Q) perineal gap (PG), posterior vaginal-vault descent (PVVD), midvaginal laxity (MVL)—vault undisplaced, and rectovaginal fascial laxity (RVFL).

Results

The largest defects were found at level I (PVVD: mean 6.0 cm; point C, mean minus 0.9 cm), and level III (PG, mean 2.9 cm; GH, mean 3.7 cm). Level II defects (MVL—vault undisplaced, mean 1.3 cm; RVFL, mean 1.1 cm; points Ap, Bp, both mean 1.0 cm) were relatively small.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the defects found at surgery for posterior vaginal compartment prolapse were more frequent at the vaginal vault (level I) and vaginal introitus (level III) than at midvagina (level II). These findings should have implications for surgical planning.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference DeLancey JOL (1992) Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:1717–1728CrossRefPubMed DeLancey JOL (1992) Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:1717–1728CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Fowler GE, Richmond DH (2011) Operations for pelvic organ prolapse. In: Lopes T, Spirtos NM, Naik R, Monaghan JM Bonney’s Gynaecological Surgery, 11th edn. Wiley-Blackwell London. Chapter 16. P154 Fowler GE, Richmond DH (2011) Operations for pelvic organ prolapse. In: Lopes T, Spirtos NM, Naik R, Monaghan JM Bonney’s Gynaecological Surgery, 11th edn. Wiley-Blackwell London. Chapter 16. P154
3.
go back to reference Nichols DH, Randall CL (1996) Posterior colporrhaphy and perineorrhaphy. In Nichols DH, Randall CL Vaginal surgery, 4th edn. Williams & Wilkins. Baltimore. Chapter 11 p279 Nichols DH, Randall CL (1996) Posterior colporrhaphy and perineorrhaphy. In Nichols DH, Randall CL Vaginal surgery, 4th edn. Williams & Wilkins. Baltimore. Chapter 11 p279
4.
go back to reference Karram MM, Maher C (2013) Surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24(1835–1):841 Karram MM, Maher C (2013) Surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24(1835–1):841
5.
go back to reference Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JOL (2006) The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1438–1443CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JOL (2006) The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1438–1443CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Avery D, Chiu TL, Birrell W (2014) Posterior repair quantification (PR-Q) using key anatomical indicators (KAI)–Preliminary Report. Int Urogynecol J 2014(25):1665–1672CrossRef Haylen BT, Avery D, Chiu TL, Birrell W (2014) Posterior repair quantification (PR-Q) using key anatomical indicators (KAI)–Preliminary Report. Int Urogynecol J 2014(25):1665–1672CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP et al (1996) The standardization of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–11CrossRefPubMed Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP et al (1996) The standardization of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–11CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Yang A, Mostwin J, Genadry R, Sanders R (1993) Patterns of prolapse demonstrated with dynamic fastscan MRI; reassessment of conventional concepts of pelvic floor weaknesses. Neurourol Urodyn 12(4):310–311 Yang A, Mostwin J, Genadry R, Sanders R (1993) Patterns of prolapse demonstrated with dynamic fastscan MRI; reassessment of conventional concepts of pelvic floor weaknesses. Neurourol Urodyn 12(4):310–311
9.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Freeman RM, de Ridder D, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, Monga A, Petri E, Rizk D, Sand P, Schaer G (2010). An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)–International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report into the Terminology for Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20. Int Urogynecol J 21:5–26 Haylen BT, Freeman RM, de Ridder D, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, Monga A, Petri E, Rizk D, Sand P, Schaer G (2010). An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)–International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report into the Terminology for Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20. Int Urogynecol J 21:5–26
10.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Vu D, Birrell W, Vashevnik S, Tse K (2012) A preliminary anatomical basis for dual (uterosacral and sacrospinous ligaments) vaginal vault support at colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J 23:879–882CrossRefPubMed Haylen BT, Vu D, Birrell W, Vashevnik S, Tse K (2012) A preliminary anatomical basis for dual (uterosacral and sacrospinous ligaments) vaginal vault support at colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J 23:879–882CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Samaan A, Vu D, Haylen BT, Tse K (2014) Cardinal ligament surgical anatomy: cardinal points at hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 25(2):189–195CrossRefPubMed Samaan A, Vu D, Haylen BT, Tse K (2014) Cardinal ligament surgical anatomy: cardinal points at hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 25(2):189–195CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Vu D, Haylen BT, Tse K, Farnsworth A (2010) Surgical anatomy of the uterosacral ligament. Int Urogynecol J 21:1123–1128CrossRefPubMed Vu D, Haylen BT, Tse K, Farnsworth A (2010) Surgical anatomy of the uterosacral ligament. Int Urogynecol J 21:1123–1128CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference McCall ML (1957) Posterior culdoplasty: surgical correction of enterocoele during vaginal hysterectomy; a preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol 10:595–602CrossRefPubMed McCall ML (1957) Posterior culdoplasty: surgical correction of enterocoele during vaginal hysterectomy; a preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol 10:595–602CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Montella JM, Morrill MY (2005) Effectiveness of the McCall culdeplasty in maintaining support after vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 16:226–229CrossRef Montella JM, Morrill MY (2005) Effectiveness of the McCall culdeplasty in maintaining support after vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 16:226–229CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Francis WFA, Jeffcoate TNA (1961) Dyspareunia following vaginal operations. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 68:1–10CrossRefPubMed Francis WFA, Jeffcoate TNA (1961) Dyspareunia following vaginal operations. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw 68:1–10CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Richardson AC (1993) The rectovaginal septum revisited: its relationship to rectocele and its importance in rectocele repair. Clin Obstet Gynecol 36:976–983CrossRefPubMed Richardson AC (1993) The rectovaginal septum revisited: its relationship to rectocele and its importance in rectocele repair. Clin Obstet Gynecol 36:976–983CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Richardson AC (1995) The anatomic defects in rectocele and enterocele. J Pelvic Surg 1:214–221 Richardson AC (1995) The anatomic defects in rectocele and enterocele. J Pelvic Surg 1:214–221
18.
go back to reference Lewicky-Gaupp C, Yousuf A, Larson KA, Fenner DE, DeLancey JOL (2010) Structural position of the posterior vagina and pelvic floor in women with and without posterior vaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(5):497PubMedPubMedCentral Lewicky-Gaupp C, Yousuf A, Larson KA, Fenner DE, DeLancey JOL (2010) Structural position of the posterior vagina and pelvic floor in women with and without posterior vaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202(5):497PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Ghetti C, Grerory WT, Edwards SR, Otto LN, Clark AL (2005) Severity of pelvic organ prolapse associated with measurements of pelvic floor function. Int Urogynecol J 16:432–436CrossRef Ghetti C, Grerory WT, Edwards SR, Otto LN, Clark AL (2005) Severity of pelvic organ prolapse associated with measurements of pelvic floor function. Int Urogynecol J 16:432–436CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Haylen BT, Birrell W, Naidoo S, Younis M (2014) Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment (Pe-QA). Int Urogynecol J 26(4):539–544CrossRefPubMed Haylen BT, Birrell W, Naidoo S, Younis M (2014) Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment (Pe-QA). Int Urogynecol J 26(4):539–544CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Posterior vaginal compartment repairs: Where are the main anatomical defects?
Authors
Bernard T. Haylen
Sushen Naidoo
Stephen J. Kerr
Chin H. Yong
Warwick Birrell
Publication date
01-05-2016
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2874-7

Other articles of this Issue 5/2016

International Urogynecology Journal 5/2016 Go to the issue