Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-02-2020 | Original Article

LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse

Authors: Xiaojuan Wang, Changdong Hu, Yisong Chen, Keqin Hua

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 2/2020

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The causes of recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are sufficiently understood. However, few studies are available evaluating reoperation for recurrence of POP. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent POP.

Methods

We reviewed data from patients with recurrent POP who underwent LerFort colpocleisis at a center between March 2012 and April 2017. Quality of life was assessed using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire (PFDI-20) scores. The Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale (PGI-I) was used to assess self-perceived success and subjective measures of satisfaction. The Clavien-Dindo classification (CD) was used to assess the safety of the procedure. Chi-square and paired t-tests were used to compare the same patients before and after treatment in the follow-up.

Results

Twenty-six patients with recurrent POP after previous prolapse surgery underwent LeFort colpocleisis. Most of these patients had at least one comorbidity. The mean age (years) was 71.8 (7.3). The mean time to recurrent POP was 5.602 (3.643) years. There were no intraoperative bladder lesions or rectal lesions. At mean follow-up of 33.1 months, all patients had no recurrence (< stage 2), significant resolution of awareness of prolapse (P < 0.05), and significantly improved satisfaction on PGI-I after surgery. Minor complications were classified as CD II level in four cases (15.4%).

Conclusion

This study suggests that LeFort colpocleisis is feasible and safe for recurrent POP, especially in older women with comorbidities.

Wilkins MF, Wu JM. Lifetime risk of surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69(2):171–7.PubMed

Dallas KB, Rogo-Gupta L, Elliott CS. What impacts the all cause risk of reoperation after pelvic organ prolapse repair? A comparison of mesh and native tissue approaches in 110,329 women. J Urol. 2018;3(18):42415–9.

Jonsson Funk M, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Pate V, Wu JM. Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(8):1279–85.CrossRef

Manodoro S, Frigerio M, Cola A, Spelzini F, Milani R. Risk factors for recurrence after hysterectomy plus native-tissue repair as primary treatment for genital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;29(4):1–7.

Lavelle ES, Giugale LE, Winger DG, Li W, CarterBrooks CM, Shepherd JP. Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2018.

Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Lee J, Swift SE, Cosson M, Deprest J, et al. International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related to native tissue female pelvic floor surgery. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(4):406–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22199.CrossRefPubMed

Abbasy S, Kenton K. Obliterative procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53(1):86–98.CrossRef

Guerette NL, Bena JF, Davila GW. Transobturator slings for stress incontinence: using urodynamic parameters to predict outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(1):97–102.CrossRef

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 Obstetr Gynecol. 2005;193(1):103.CrossRef

10.

Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.CrossRef

11.

Mothes AR, Mothes HK, Radosa MP, Runnebaum IB. Systematic assessment of surgical complications in 438 cases of vaginal native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse adopting Clavien-Dindo classification. Arch Gynecol Obstetr. 2014;291(6):1–5.

12.

Mettu JR, Colaco M, Badlani GH. Evidence-based outcomes for mesh-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(4):370–4.CrossRef

13.

14.

Wang X, Chen Y, Hua K. Pelvic symptoms, body image, and regret after LeFort colpocleisis: a long-term follow-up. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(3):415–9.CrossRef

15.

Ismail S, Duckett J, Rizk D, Sorinola O, Kammererdoak D, Contrerasortiz O, et al. Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(11):1–14.CrossRef

16.

Haya N, Maher M, Ballard EJIUJ. Surgical management of recurrent upper vaginal prolapse following sacral colpopexy. 2015; 26 (8):1243–1245.

17.

Mearini L, Nunzi E, Di Biase M, Costantini E. Laparoscopic management of vaginal vault prolapse recurring after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Urol Int. 2016;97(2):158–64. https://doi.org/10.1159/000443337.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Iglesia CB, Hale DS, Lucente VR. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal mesh for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(3):363–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1918-5.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Mikos T, Chatzipanteli M, Grimbizis GF, Tarlatzis BC. Enlightening the mechanisms of POP recurrence after LeFort colpocleisis. Case report and review. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(7):971–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3236-9.CrossRefPubMed

Title: LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse
Authors: Xiaojuan Wang
Changdong Hu
Yisong Chen
Keqin Hua
Publication date: 01-02-2020
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03969-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

Commentary on: Reoperation rates for pelvic organ prolapse repairs with biologic and synthetic grafts in a large population-based cohort

Citation classics: the 100 most cited articles in Urogynecology

Response to letter to the editor regarding “Utility of patient decision aids (PDA) in stress urinary incontinence surgery”

Motion of the vaginal apex during strain and defecation

Letter to Editor: “Utility of patient decision aids (PDA) in stress urinary incontinence surgery” by Jha and Duckett 2019

Pelvic floor muscle training adapted for urinary incontinence in multiple sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial