OBJECTIVE: To characterize our experience with colpocleisis in a urologic setting because it has not been documented broadly in the urologic literature.
METHODS: Retrospective review of demographics, urodynamics, presenting symptoms, complications, and outcomes for patients undergoing colpocleisis from 2001-2010 was performed. A questionnaire including the short forms of the Urinary Distress Inventory and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6), and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement was sent to consenting patients.
RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were identified. Examinations were all POP-Q stage 3 or greater or Baden Walker grade 3 or higher; 73.6% underwent total colpocleisis and 26.4% Le Fort; 60.4% underwent concomitant sling. Complications included 1 patient requiring transfusion, 1 with pulmonary embolus, 1 needing clot evacuation, and 1 requiring intraoperative cystotomy repair. There was no postoperative de novo urgency, no recurrence of prolapse, and no chronic urinary retention. In patients not undergoing urethral sling, stress urinary incontinence persisted in 4 patients and occurred de novo in 1. Mean follow-up was 9.3 months. Twenty-two surveys were returned: 90.9% described their condition as much or very much better on Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The average POPDI-6 score was 9.1. Frequency and urgency were the most common complaints leading to bother on the UDI-6 (33.3%). Most of these responders had a preoperative urge component.
CONCLUSION: In a selected patient population, colpocleisis is safe and efficacious. Persistent lower urinary tract symptoms comprise the highest frequency of complaints after colpocleisis, and this must be included in patient counseling. In an aging patient population with expected increase in demand for pelvic floor reconstruction, colpocleisis is a useful approach for the urologist.
Written by:
Koski ME, Chow D, Bedestani A, Togami JM, Chesson RR, Winters JC. Are you the author?
Department of Urology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA.
Reference: Urology. 2012 Sep;80(3):542-6.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.009
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 22925232
UroToday.com Trauma & Reconstruction Section
