Native-tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with nonabsorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated patient-reported outcomes and complications after treatment of isolated primary rectocele in routine health-care settings using native-tissue repair or nonabsorbable mesh. METHODS: We used prospective data from the Swedish National Register for Gynaecological Surgery and included 3988 women with a primary operation for rectocele between 2006 and 2014: 3908 women had native-tissue repair, 80 were operated with nonabsorbable mesh. No concurrent operations were performed. Pre- and perioperative data were collected from doctors and patients. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated 2 and 12 months after the operation. Only validated questionnaires were used. RESULTS: One year after native-tissue repair, 77.8 % (76.4-79.6) felt they were cured, which was defined as never or hardly ever feeling genital protrusion; 74.0 % (72.2-75.7) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 84 % (82.8-85.9) reported improvement of symptoms. After mesh repair, 89.8 % (77.8-96.6) felt cured, 69.2 % (54.9-81.3) were very satisfied or satisfied, and 86.0 % (72.1-94.7) felt improvement. No significant differences were found between groups. Organ damage was found in 16 (0.4 %) patients in the native-tissue repair group compared with one (1.3 %) patient in the mesh group [odds ratio (OR) 3.08; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07-20.30]. The rate of de novo dyspareunia after native-tissue repair was 33.1 % (30.4-35.8), comparable with that after mesh repair. The reoperation rate was 1.1 % (0.8-1.5) in both groups. CONCLUSION: Most patients were cured and satisfied after native-tissue repair of the posterior vaginal wall, and the patient-reported outcomes were comparable with results after mesh repair. The risk of serious complications and reoperation were comparable between groups.

Repeatability of Junctional Zone Measurements Using 3-Dimensional Transvaginal Sonography in Healthy Fertile Women.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the junctional zone and determine the intraobserver and interobserver repeatability of junctional zone measurements using 3-dimensional (3D) transvaginal sonography in healthy fertile women. METHODS: We examined 82 consecutive women with 3D transvaginal sonography. The maximum and minimum junctional zone thickness was measured in all uterine walls. The difference between maximum and minimum thickness and average measurements (maximum thickness + minimum thickness/2) of the anterior, posterior, fundal, and lateral walls were calculated. Among the first 40 consecutive women, intraobserver and interobserver repeatability was evaluated according to the Bland-Altman method and expressed as a coefficient of repeatability. RESULTS: Using 3D transvaginal sonography, we visualized a thin and regular junctional zone in most women. The posterior uterine wall had the largest median maximum junctional zone thickness value of 5.2 (interquartile range, 3.8-6.5) mm. Ten women (12%) had maximum thickness values of 8.0 to 12.0 mm. The maximum thickness in each uterine wall had intraobserver and interobserver coefficients of repeatability of ±2.1 to ±3.4 and ±2.6 to ±3.9 mm, respectively, which were reduced by average measurements: ±1.9 and ±2.0 mm (anterior and posterior walls) and ±1.5 mm (fundal and lateral walls) for intraobserver and interobserver values. Correlations between measurements were poor in the narrow range of junctional zone thickness. CONCLUSIONS: The junctional zone has an indistinct outline on 3D transvaginal sonography, resulting in measurement errors within a broad range of ±2 to ±4 mm, which were only reduced to some extent by average measurements. The thickness of the junctional zone varied within a narrow range in this healthy fertile population, and reliability measurements of junctional zone thickness have to be evaluated in women with a wider range of thickness. The observer repeatability and reliability of junctional zone measurements need to be further evaluated and refined before applying this method in clinical practice.