Objective: To investigate the differences in efficacy, postoperative complications, and patient satisfaction between posterior intravaginal slingplasty (PIVS) and unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) procedures.
Study Design: A retrospective study of thirty-three women who underwent PIVS or SSLF treatment for vaginal vault prolapse in Oulu University Hospital. The patients were invited to a follow-up visit to evaluate the objective and subjective outcomes. Median follow-up time was 16 months (range 6-52). The anatomical outcome was detected by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Information on urinary, bowel, and sexual dysfunctions and overall satisfaction was gathered with specific questionnaire. The data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test.
Results: Mesh erosion was found in 4 (25%) patients in the PIVS group. Anatomical stage II prolapse or worse (any POP-Q point ≥-1) was detected in 8 (50%) patients in the PIVS group and 9 (53%) patients in the SSLF group. Overall satisfaction rates were 62% and 76%, respectively.
Conclusion: The efficacy of PIVS and SSLF is equally poor, and the rate of vaginal erosion is intolerably high with the PIVS method. Based on our study, we cannot recommend the usage of either technique in operative treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.
Written by:
Nyyssönen V, Talvensaari-Mattila A, Santala M. Are you the author?
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, North-Carelian Central Hospital, Tikkamäentie 16, 80210 Joensuu, Finland.
Reference: ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug 13;2013:958670.
doi: 10.1155/2013/958670
PubMed Abstract
PMID: 23997961
UroToday.com Trauma & Reconstruction Section
