Cited by 24Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsUreteral procedures and complications

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Transvaginal native-tissue repair of vaginal vault prolapse

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse repair is a challenge for pelvic floor surgeons. Native-tissue repair procedures imply lower costs and reduced morbidity. Our study aims to evaluate operative data, complications, objective, subjective and functional outcomes of transvaginal native-tissue repair for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. We also investigated differences among available techniques. METHODS: Retrospective study including patients with symptomatic vaginal vault prolapse (≥stage 2), previously treated with transvaginal vault suspension through native-tissue repair. Objective recurrence was defined as the descent of at least one compartment ≥II stage according to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system or need of reoperation. Subjective recurrence was defined as the presence of bulging symptoms. Patients satisfaction was evaluated with PGI-I Score. RESULTS: The study included 111 patients. Apical suspension was achieved either by uterosacral ligament suspension (16), levator myorrhaphy (17), iliococcygeus fascia fixation (65) or sacrospinous ligament fixation (13). No intraoperative complications were observed. Perioperative/postoperative complications occurred in 8 patients (7.2%). Mean follow-up was 24.5±12.1 months. Objective recurrence was observed in 28 patients (25.2%). Reintervention was required by 3 patients (2.7%). Subjective recurrence was referred by 6 patients (5.4%). Mean satisfaction evaluated with PGI-I Score was 1.2±0.6. No differences in terms of operative data, overall complications, objective, subjective cure rate and perceived satisfaction were found among different techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal repair with native-tissue procedures is safe and effective in correcting posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse and represents a valid alternative to prosthetic procedures for vaginal vault prolapse treatment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.23736/s0026-4784.18.04191-6

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Milani, R., Frigerio, M., Vellucci, F. L., Palmieri, S., Spelzini, F., & Manodoro, S.
Affiliations
  • Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo (IT)
  • University of Siena (IT)
  • Ospedale Infermi di Rimini (IT)
Venue
Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology
Published
2018-06
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
371-377
ISSN
  • 0026-4784 (ISSN-L)
  • 2724-606X
  • 2724-6450
OpenAlex
W2955636933
Cited by
24
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Ureteral procedures and complications
Keywords
vaginal vault prolapse, native tissue repair, transvaginal repair, uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament fixation, prolapse recurrence, patient satisfaction, pelvic floor surgery
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Pelvic Floor, Pelvic Organ Prolapse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review