Posterior vaginal compartment repairs: Where are the main anatomical defects?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Traditionally, it has been believed that posterior vaginal compartment prolapse was largely due to defects in the rectovaginal fascia, with surgical repairs concentrating on addressing this defect. We aimed to determine the relative size of defects at the different vaginal levels (I-III) following a large number of posterior vaginal compartment repairs (PRs) to determine whether this traditional viewpoint is still appropriate. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 300 consecutive PRs, mostly following prior or concomitant hysterectomy, two sets of markers of posterior compartment prolapse were used to measure anatomical defects at levels I-III: (i) from Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system points C, Ap, Bp, and genital hiatus (GH), and from Posterior Repair Quantification (PR-Q) perineal gap (PG), posterior vaginal-vault descent (PVVD), midvaginal laxity (MVL)-vault undisplaced, and rectovaginal fascial laxity (RVFL). RESULTS: The largest defects were found at level I (PVVD: mean 6.0 cm; point C, mean minus 0.9 cm), and level III (PG, mean 2.9 cm; GH, mean 3.7 cm). Level II defects (MVL-vault undisplaced, mean 1.3 cm; RVFL, mean 1.1 cm; points Ap, Bp, both mean 1.0 cm) were relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the defects found at surgery for posterior vaginal compartment prolapse were more frequent at the vaginal vault (level I) and vaginal introitus (level III) than at midvagina (level II). These findings should have implications for surgical planning.

Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment (Pe-QA).

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Perineorrhaphy (Pe) has not been subject to a comprehensive perioperative quantitative assessment (QA). We wish to nominate such an assessment (Pe-QA) for any Pe, through testing the QA on the excision of the perineal gap (PG) at the time of posterior repair (PR). METHODS: At 50 consecutive PRs, the following measurements were taken pre- and postoperatively: (i) perineorrhaphy width (PW) equals PG [1]; (ii) perineorrhaphy depth (PD); (iii) perineal length (PL); (iv) midperineal thickness (MPT); (v) genital hiatus (GH) and (vi) total posterior vaginal length (TPVL). The total vaginal length was also measured. Surgical details deemed appropriate to each repair were recorded. RESULTS: The overall means and ranges (cm) were: (i) PW 2.9 (1.5-5.5); (ii) PD 1.6 (0.8-2.0); (iii) PL 2.9 (1.5-4.5); (iv) MPT 0.7 (0.4-1.1); (v) GH 3.9 (2.3-6.5); (vi) TPVL 9.2 (6.0-12.5). Excision of PG (100 % cases reducing PW and PD to zero) resulted in a mean 23.6 % increase in total vaginal length over that if the repair was commenced at the hymen, despite a 3.3 % decrease in the TPVL perioperatively. There was a mean 30.8 % reduction in the GH, a mean 27.6 % increase in the PL and a mean 57.1 % increase in the MPT. CONCLUSIONS: Pe and the anatomical results of such surgery can be subject to quantitative assessment allowing comparison studies between different forms of Pe and possibly other types of perineal surgeries.