Transvaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vault and marked uterovaginal prolapse

Authors

  • Marcus P. Carey,

    Registrar, Corresponding author
    1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury
      Dr M. P. Carey, 66 Barkly Street, Fitzroy North, Victoria, 3068 Australia.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mark C. Slack

    Registrar
    1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury
    Search for more papers by this author

Dr M. P. Carey, 66 Barkly Street, Fitzroy North, Victoria, 3068 Australia.

ABSTRACT

Objective To assess the results of the sacrospinous colpopexy procedure for the treatment of vault prolapse following hysterectomy and marked uterovaginal prolapse.

Design A prospective study of all patients undergoing sacrospinous colpopexy for vault and marked uterovaginal prolapse between December 1991 and December 1992.

Setting Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury.

Subjects Forty women with vault prolapse following hysterectomy and 24 with marked uterovaginal prolapse.

Interventions All patients underwent posterior vaginal repair, enterocele sac obliteration and sacrospinous colpopexy. In 48 patients an anterior vaginal repair with suburethral buttressing sutures was also performed. A long-needle bladder neck suspension operation (Raz procedure) was included for three women with coexistent stress incontinence. In 13 patients a vaginal hysterectomy was performed and in 11 the uterus was conserved. A postanal sacrorectopexy was performed on one patient with marked rectal prolapse.

Results The mean follow up period was five months. So far, there have been three failures in the group treated for vault prolapse. One of these underwent a successful repeat sacrospinous colpopexy and repair. The main long term complication was cystocele formation. One sexually active patient complained of dyspareunia following surgery.

Conclusion The sacrospinous colpopexy is effective in the treatment of vault prolapse and compares favourably with abdominal vault supporting procedures. It avoids major abdominal surgery and allows the surgeon to correct coexistent cystocele and rectocele. This procedure is also a useful adjuvant when treating marked uterovaginal prolapse.

Ancillary