Surgical outcomes following total Prolift: Colpopexy versus hysteropexy

Authors

  • Colleen D. McDERMOTT,

    1. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Colin L. TERRY,

    1. Department of Biostatistics
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Patrick J. WOODMAN,

    1. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Methodist Hospital/Clarian Health Partners, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Douglass S. HALE

    1. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Methodist Hospital/Clarian Health Partners, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

  • The following study has been presented in poster format at the American Urogynecological Society 30th Annual Scientific Meeting held September 24–26, 2009, at the Westin Diplomat Resort in Hollywood, Florida.

Colleen D. McDermott, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, 30 Bond Street Rm. #15-018B, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5B 1W8. Email: colleen.mcdermott@utoronto.ca

Abstract

Background:  Total Prolift® is a pelvic floor repair system that is performed transvaginally and can be carried out with or without the uterus in situ.

Aim:  To compare surgical outcomes following total Prolift colpopexy (TPC) and total Prolift hysteropexy (TPH).

Methods:  This was a retrospective cohort study of women that underwent TPC (n = 65) or TPH (n = 24). Outcomes were compared between groups using Student’s t-test, ANCOVA and Fisher’s exact tests (P ≤ 0.05).

Results:  There were no significant differences between TPC and TPH for all peri-operative variables. Patients were followed 6–12 months after surgery. Post-operatively, TPC patients had significantly higher pelvic organ prolapse – quantification (POP-Q) point C measurements (P = 0.05); however, all other POP-Q measurements were similar, including POP-Q apical stage of prolapse, with 99% in the TPC group and 92% in the TPH group at stage I or less. Post-operative mesh erosion, prolapse symptoms, surgical satisfaction, sexual activity and dyspareunia rates did not significantly differ between groups.

Conclusions:  This study showed that TPC and TPH have similar surgical outcomes, except for vaginal vault measurements reflected by POP-Q point C.

Ancillary