scholarly journals A commentary on “Surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse; a comparison between ipsilateral uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament fixation—a nationwide cohort study”

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghazaleh Rostaminia
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
Uterosacral Ligament ◽  
Vaginal Vault Prolapse ◽  
Vaginal Vault ◽  
Uterosacral Ligament Suspension ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Vault Prolapse ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

scholarly journals Posterior Intravaginal Slingplasty versus Unilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in Treatment of Vaginal Vault Prolapse

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virva Nyyssönen ◽  
Anne Talvensaari-Mattila ◽  
Markku Santala
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Vaginal Vault Prolapse ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Vaginal Vault ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Vault Prolapse ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Intravaginal Slingplasty

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.

Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Complications and Results

1991 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRADLEY J. MONK ◽  
JANE L. RAMP ◽  
F.J. MONTZ ◽  
THOMAS B. LEBHERZ
Keyword(s):  
Vaginal Vault Prolapse ◽  
Vaginal Vault ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Vault Prolapse ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

UP-2.20: Sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse with a reusable suturing device (RSD-Ney) in 5 minutes

Urology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 76 (3) ◽  
pp. S86-S87
Author(s):  
J. Neymeyer ◽  
M. Abou-Dakn ◽  
W. Abdul-Wahab Al-Ansari ◽  
E. Greiner ◽  
S. Kassin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vaginal Vault Prolapse ◽  
Vaginal Vault ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Vault Prolapse ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

Repair of recurrent vaginal vault prolapse using sacrospinous ligament fixation with mesh interposition and reinforcement

2005 ◽  
Vol 84 (10) ◽  
pp. 992-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsia-Shu Lo ◽  
Shang-Gwo Horng ◽  
Huei-Jean Huang ◽  
Shu-Jane Lee ◽  
Ching-Chung Liang
Keyword(s):  
Vaginal Vault Prolapse ◽  
Vaginal Vault ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Vault Prolapse ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

How we do an anterior sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Estelle Declas ◽  
Geraldine Giraudet ◽  
Celine De Graer ◽  
Cyril Bengler ◽  
Sophie Delplanque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vaginal Vault Prolapse ◽  
Vaginal Vault ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Vault Prolapse ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation ◽  
Anterior Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation

scholarly journals SACROSPINOUS LIGAMENT FIXATION FOR APICAL PROLAPSE REPAIR COMPARED TO OTHER VAGINAL PROCEDURES

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 208-211
Author(s):  
Olivia IONESCU ◽  
◽  
Nicolae BACALBASA ◽  
Nahedd SABA ◽  
Gabriel BANCEANU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Vaginal Vault Prolapse ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Vaginal Vault ◽  
Apical Prolapse ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament ◽  
Vault Prolapse ◽  
Prolapse Repair ◽  
Current Frequency ◽  
Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation ◽  
Uterosacral Ligaments

The vaginal procedures for uterine prolapse and/or vaginal vault prolapse are based on the attachment of the vaginal apex at the sacrospinous ligament (SL), the uterosacral ligaments (USL) or the iliococcygeus fascia. The fixation at the sacrospinous ligament (SSL) known as sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) is the most studied and performed method for apical prolapse repair. Generally, it is preferred for cases of vaginal vault prolapse post-hysterectomy compared with the suspension at the uterosacral ligament (USLS) that it is usually performed at the time of uterus removal. Due to its associated high rate of recurrence, especially prolapse of the anterior vaginal wall, SSLS has been progressively abandoned in the favor of other modern vaginal procedures such as the Saba Nahedd technique. However, the frequently reported esh associated complications, there are still logical reasons to continue the performance and development of the SSLF technique. In order to assess the current frequency of application and effectiveness of SSLF we have made a review on the recently published literature on the SSLF technique focusing on the rate of success and recurrence, the peri-and postoperative complications, its impact on the daily activities and sexual function. We have selected systhematic reviews, follow-up and retrospective studies as well as metanalyses which have been published in the last 10 years in the german or english language. The aim of this article is to describe the SSLF technique and its advantages in the treatment of sever uterovaginal or vaginal vault prolapse.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document