Cargando…

Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that vaginal vault prolapse can affect up to 43% of women following hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Many techniques have been described to prevent and treat vaginal vault prolapse. The primary objective of our study was to compare McCall’s culdoplasty (when per...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Niblock, Kathy, Bailie, Emily, McCracken, Geoff, Johnston, Keith
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28458627
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1006-4
_version_ 1782521366804692992
author Niblock, Kathy
Bailie, Emily
McCracken, Geoff
Johnston, Keith
author_facet Niblock, Kathy
Bailie, Emily
McCracken, Geoff
Johnston, Keith
author_sort Niblock, Kathy
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that vaginal vault prolapse can affect up to 43% of women following hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Many techniques have been described to prevent and treat vaginal vault prolapse. The primary objective of our study was to compare McCall’s culdoplasty (when performed along side vaginal hysterectomy) with laparoscopic uterosacral plication (when performed along side total laparoscopic hysterectomy) for prevention of vaginal vault prolapse. Secondary outcomes included inpatient stay and perioperative complications. A retrospective comparison study comparing 73 patients who underwent ‘laparoscopic hysterectomy and uterosacral plication’ against 70 patients who underwent ‘vaginal hysterectomy and McCall culdoplasty’. All operations were carried out by two trained surgeons. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between BMI or parity. There were statistically significantly more patients presenting with post hysterectomy vault prolapse (PHVP) in the group of patients who had undergone uterosacral plication (12 out of 73) compared with McCalls culdoplasty (0 out of 70) P = 0.000394. Inpatient stay in the uterosacral plication group was significantly shorter mean 1.8 compared to 3.6 for McCall group (P-Value is <0.00001). There was no significance in the perioperative complications between both groups (P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: McCalls is a superior operation to prevent PHVP compared to uterosacral plication with no difference in terms of perioperative complications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5389989
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53899892017-04-27 Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse Niblock, Kathy Bailie, Emily McCracken, Geoff Johnston, Keith Gynecol Surg Original Article BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that vaginal vault prolapse can affect up to 43% of women following hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Many techniques have been described to prevent and treat vaginal vault prolapse. The primary objective of our study was to compare McCall’s culdoplasty (when performed along side vaginal hysterectomy) with laparoscopic uterosacral plication (when performed along side total laparoscopic hysterectomy) for prevention of vaginal vault prolapse. Secondary outcomes included inpatient stay and perioperative complications. A retrospective comparison study comparing 73 patients who underwent ‘laparoscopic hysterectomy and uterosacral plication’ against 70 patients who underwent ‘vaginal hysterectomy and McCall culdoplasty’. All operations were carried out by two trained surgeons. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between BMI or parity. There were statistically significantly more patients presenting with post hysterectomy vault prolapse (PHVP) in the group of patients who had undergone uterosacral plication (12 out of 73) compared with McCalls culdoplasty (0 out of 70) P = 0.000394. Inpatient stay in the uterosacral plication group was significantly shorter mean 1.8 compared to 3.6 for McCall group (P-Value is <0.00001). There was no significance in the perioperative complications between both groups (P = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: McCalls is a superior operation to prevent PHVP compared to uterosacral plication with no difference in terms of perioperative complications. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2017-04-12 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5389989/ /pubmed/28458627 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1006-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Niblock, Kathy
Bailie, Emily
McCracken, Geoff
Johnston, Keith
Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse
title Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse
title_full Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse
title_fullStr Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse
title_full_unstemmed Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse
title_short Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse
title_sort vaginal mccall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28458627
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1006-4
work_keys_str_mv AT niblockkathy vaginalmccallculdoplastyversuslaparoscopicuterosacralplicationtoprophylacticallyaddressvaginalvaultprolapse
AT bailieemily vaginalmccallculdoplastyversuslaparoscopicuterosacralplicationtoprophylacticallyaddressvaginalvaultprolapse
AT mccrackengeoff vaginalmccallculdoplastyversuslaparoscopicuterosacralplicationtoprophylacticallyaddressvaginalvaultprolapse
AT johnstonkeith vaginalmccallculdoplastyversuslaparoscopicuterosacralplicationtoprophylacticallyaddressvaginalvaultprolapse