Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2021, Vol. 48 Issue (2): 389-394    DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog.2021.02.2315
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Comparison of vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty and transvaginal mesh surgery in the management of female pelvic organ prolapse
Han Bich Choi1, Moon Kyoung Cho1, *(), Chul Hong Kim1, *()
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chonnam National University Medical School, 59626 Gwangju, Republic of Korea
Download:  PDF(168KB)  ( 75 ) Full text   ( 7 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty and transvaginal mesh surgery in the management of female pelvic organ prolapse. Methods: We compared anatomical and functional outcomes who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty or transvaginal mesh surgery for anterior and apical vaginal prolapse at a single tertiary center from January 2009 to December 2016. Anatomical outcome was measured by POP-Q stage and functional outcomes were measured using three questionnaires: the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ-12). Surgical treatment was done with POP-Q stage > III and anterior or apical compartment prolased patients. Total follow up legnth is two years for each surgical groups. Results: We compared anatomical and functional outcomes in 154 women who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty (n = 80) or transvaginal mesh surgery (n = 74) for anterior and apical vaginal prolapse at a single tertiary center from January 2009 to December 2016. In this retrospective cohort study, no significant differences in anatomical and functional outcomes were observed at 1- and 2-year follow-up between women who underwent McCall culdoplasty or transvaginal mesh surgery, except for total vaginal length. There were no statistical differences between the two groups for postoperative complications like POSUI (transvaginal mesh operation vs hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty, 17.5% vs 22.5%, respectively, P = 0.651), urinary urgency incontinence (9.4% vs 8.7%, P = 0.48), overactive bladder (4.0% vs 10.0%, P = 0.147), urinary tract infection (0% vs 2.5%, P = 0.21) or recurrence rate (12.3% vs 2.5%, P = 0.155). Conclusion: There were no anatomical or functional differences in outcome between vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasy and transvaginal mesh surgery.
Key words:  Synthetic mesh      Native tissue repair      McCall culdoplasty      Pelvic organ prolapse     
Submitted:  06 October 2020      Revised:  18 December 2020      Accepted:  11 January 2021      Published:  15 April 2021     
*Corresponding Author(s):  hongkim@chonnam.ac.kr (Chul Hong Kim); chomk@chonnam.ac.kr (Moon Kyoung Cho)   

Cite this article: 

Han Bich Choi, Moon Kyoung Cho, Chul Hong Kim. Comparison of vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty and transvaginal mesh surgery in the management of female pelvic organ prolapse. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 389-394.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.ceog.2021.02.2315     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2021/V48/I2/389

[1] Shaadaiti Wufuer, XiaoHui Wan, Buhaiqiemu Kadeer, Adilai Maimaitimin, Gulina Ababaikeli. Expression of pelvic organ prolapse-related protein fibulin-5, TGFβ, and Smad2/3 in Uyghur women of Xinjiang[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 416-422.
[2] O. Sevket, T. Takmaz, A.C. Sevket, A. Toprak, P. Ozcan. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy with anterior colpotomy (VALSAC): technique and mean 20 months outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 887-894.
[3] G. Calongos, Y. Tsuji, Y. Ito, M. Handa, Y. Kubota, A. Ida. Short term outcomes of a new non-dissection minimally invasive surgery method for cystocele repair[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 355-358.
[4] N. Haya, I. Feferkorn, F. Fares, N. Azzam, R. Auslender, Y. Abramov. Elastin genetic point mutation and the risk of pelvic organ prolapse[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 75-78.
[5] H. H. Chill, R. H. Yahya, M. Olek, S. Herzberg, S. Lesser, D. Shveiky. Anatomical outcome and patient satisfaction after two-stitch utero-sacral ligament suspension[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(6): 906-909.
[6] A. Klimczak, G. Kilic, B.S. Unlu, Y.-L. Lin, Y.-F. Kuo, M. Borahay. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery after different hysterectomy methods: a population-based cohort study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(3): 466-472.
[7] N. Danandeh Osgui, P. Bastani. Improvement of concomitant symptoms of pelvic organ prolapsed with applied pessary[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(1): 42-44.
[8] G. Sukgen. Laparoscopic hysterectomy with anterior four-arm mesh implant technique in the surgical treatment of a woman with pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence: a case report and review of the literature[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(1): 161-163.
[9] G. Sukgen, A. Altunkol, D. Abat. Comparison between four- and six-arm pelvic organ polypropylene mesh implantation for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(3): 414-418.
[10] K. Kai, Y. Kai, M. Nishida, K. Nasu, S. Iwanaga, H. Narahara. Modified Gilliam-Doleris hysteropexy for juvenile uterovaginal prolapse[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(1): 109-111.
[11] F. Nobili, A. Lukic, I. Puccica, M. Vitali, M. Schimberni, F. Manzara, A. Frega, B. Mossa, M. Moscarini, D. Caserta. The relevance of fascial surgical repair in the management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP)[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(5): 744-748.
[1] Eli M. Roth, Michael H. Davidson. PCSK9 Inhibitors: Mechanism of Action, Efficacy, and Safety[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2018, 19(S1): 31 -46 .
[2] Sandeep K. Krishnan, Norman E. Lepor. Acute and Chronic Cardiovascular Effects of Hyperkalemia: New Insights Into Prevention and Clinical Management[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2016, 17(S1): 9 -21 .
[3] Ibrahim Sidiqi, Patrick Alexander. Current Advances in Endovascular Therapy for Infrapopliteal Artery Disease[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2015, 16(1): 36 -50 .
[4] Prakash C. Deedwania. Management of Patients With Stable Angina and Type 2 Diabetes[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2015, 16(2): 105 -113 .
[5] Peter Shalit. Management of Dyslipidemia in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2014, 15(S1): 38 -46 .
[6] Sophie Mavrogeni, Fabrizio Cantini, Gerald M. Pohost. Systemic Vasculitis: An Underestimated Cause of Heart Failure—Assessment by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2013, 14(1): 49 -55 .
[7] George L. Smith. Appropriate Use Criteria: The Gold Standard, or a Mechanism for the Derogation of Clinical Judgment?[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2011, 12(2): 105 .
[8] Jeffrey W. Moses, Stephane Carlier, Issam Moussa. Lesion Preparation Prior to Stenting[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2004, 5(S2): 16 -21 .
[9] Dean J. Kereiakes. Coronary Small-Vessel Stenting in the Era of Drug Elution[J]. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2004, 5(S2): 34 -45 .
[10] M. Pakiž, L. Lukman, N. Kozar. Patients' and physicians' expectations differ significantly during the follow-up period after completion of primary treatment of gynecological or breast cancer[J]. European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology, 2019, 40(5): 781 -786 .