Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-10-2020 | Original Article

Traditional McCall culdoplasty compared to a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension: anatomical and clinical outcomes

Authors: Silvia Parisi, Antonia Novelli, Elena Olearo, Alessandro Basile, Andrea Puppo

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 10/2020

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

This study compared anatomical and clinical outcomes of traditional McCall culdoplasty versus a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension (DLS).

Methods

This retrospective study presents outcomes of 68 patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy and vaginal suspension for apical prolapse ≥ stage II according to the POP-Q score system, at, between January 2016 and February 2018. In 34 women vaginal cuff suspension was obtained with traditional McCall culdoplasty (McCall group), while in 34 women we performed a modified McCall, which consists of a double ligament suspension (DLS group), suspending the vaginal cuff to uterosacral ligaments and also to adnexal peduncles. Primary outcome was prolapse recurrence ≥ stage II according to the POP-Q system. Fisher’s, Mann-Whitney U and Student’s t tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results

There were no statistical differences among patients’ preoperative characteristics, operative time, blood loss or postoperative complications. Follow-up mean duration was 23.2 ± 6.7 and 22.4 ± 8.7 months in the McCall and DLS group, respectively. Prolapse recurrence occurred in 11 (32.3%) women in the McCall group versus 2 (5.9%) women in the DLS group (p < 0.05): among them, 2 patients (5.9%) in the McCall group and 1 (2.9%) in the DLS group required further treatment. Total vaginal length was 6.1 ± 0.9 cm in the McCall group versus 6.9 ± 0.7 cm in the DLS group (p < 0.001). No statistical difference in quality of life assessment was observed.

Conclusions

DLS group patients had better anatomical outcomes and lower recurrence rates than McCall group patients, without increasing operative time or complications. A prospective study with more cases is needed to confirm our data.

Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4–20.CrossRef

Khunda A, Vashisht A, Cutner A. New procedures for uterine prolapse. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(3):363–79.CrossRef

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.CrossRef

Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Lentz GM, Weiss NS. Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:437–40.CrossRef

Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS. Cost of pel- Vic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:646–51.PubMed

Oversand SH, Staff AC, Spydslaug AE, Svennings S, Borstad E. Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urgynecol J. 2014;25:81–9.CrossRef

Price N, Slack A, Jwarah E, Jackson S. The incidence of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse: an 11-year experience. Menopause Int. 2008;14(4):145–8.CrossRef

Jha S, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(5):517–28.CrossRef

Vanspauwen R, Seman E, Dwyer P. Survey of current management of prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50(3):262–7.CrossRef

10.

Cheon C, Maher C. Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1873–6.CrossRef

11.

Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M, Pifarotti P, Meschia M, Cortese M. Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. BJOG. 2005;112:107–11.CrossRef

12.

Julian TM. The efficacy of Marlex mesh in the repair of severe, recurrent vaginal prolapse of the anterior midvaginal wall. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;186:1472–5.CrossRef

13.

Novara L, Sgro LG, Pecchio S, Ottino L, Tomatis V. Biglia N. Transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension: an alternative to McCall culdoplasty in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2019;240:278–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.07.007.CrossRef

14.

Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Feb;202(2):124–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.07.052.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Spelzini F, Frigerio M, Manodoro S, Interdonato ML, Cesana MC, Verri D, et al. Modified McCall culdoplasty versus Shull suspension in pelvic prolapse primary repair: a retrospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):65–71.CrossRef

16.

Schiavi MC, Savone D, Di Mascio D, Di Tucci C, Perniola G, Zullo MA, et al. Long-term experience of vaginal vault prolapse prevention at hysterectomy time by modified McCall culdoplasty or Shull suspension: clinical, sexual and quality of life assessment after surgical intervention. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;223:113–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.02.025.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.CrossRef

18.

McCall ML. Posterior culdeplasty; surgical correction of enterocele during vaginal hysterectomy; a preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol. 1957;10:595–602.CrossRef

19.

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;193:103–13.CrossRef

20.

Yazdany T, Bhatia N. Uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: anatomy, outcome and surgical considerations. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008;20(5):484–8.CrossRef

21.

Silva WA, Pauls RN, Segal JL, et al. Uterosacral ligament vault suspension: five-year outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:255–63.CrossRef

22.

Baden WF, Walker T. Surgical repair of vaginal defects. Philadelphia: The Lippincott Company Ed.; 1992.

23.

Cosma S, Petruzzelli P, Chiadò Fiorio Tin M, Parisi S, Olearo E, Fassio F, Zizzo R, Danese S, Benedetto C. Simplified laparoscopic sacropexy avoiding deep vaginal dissection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;143(2):239–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12632.

24.

Deo G, Bernasconi DP, Cola A, Palmieri S, Spelzini F, Milani R, et al. Long-term outcomes and five-year recurrence-free survival curves after native-tissue prolapse repair. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;147:238–45.CrossRef

25.

Manodoro S, Frigerio M, Milani R, Spelzini F. Tips and tricks for uterosacral ligament suspension: how to avoid ureteral injury. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:161–3.CrossRef

26.

Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5149.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Morgan DM, Rogers MA, Huebner M, Wei JT, Delancey JO. Heterogeneity in anatomic outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation for prolapse: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1424–33.CrossRef

Title: Traditional McCall culdoplasty compared to a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension: anatomical and clinical outcomes
Authors: Silvia Parisi
Antonia Novelli
Elena Olearo
Alessandro Basile
Andrea Puppo
Publication date: 01-10-2020
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 10/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04403-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Traditional McCall culdoplasty compared to a modified McCall technique with double ligament suspension: anatomical and clinical outcomes

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2020

Long-term follow-up of native tissue anterior vaginal wall repair: does the POP-Q stage really reflect patients’ satisfaction rate?

The impact of prior prolapse repairs on surgical outcomes with minimally invasive sacral colpopexy

3D modeling and 3D printing in functional urology: the future perspective

Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse

Evaluation of suture material used in anterior colporrhaphy and the risk of recurrence

Anterior repair versus no anterior repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse resolved under simulated apical support at the time of uterosacral ligament suspension