Rectal–vaginal pressure gradient in patients with pelvic organ prolapse and symptomatic rectocele

Objective The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between rectal–vaginal pressure and symptomatic rectocele in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Method Patients with posterior vaginal prolapse staged III or IV in accordance with the POP Quantitation classification method who were scheduled for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery in the years 2016–2019 were included in the study. Rectocele was diagnosed using translabial ultrasound, and obstructed defecation (OD) was diagnosed in accordance with the Roma IV diagnostic criteria. Both rectal and vaginal pressure were measured using peritron manometers at maximum Vasalva. To ensure stability, the test was performed three times with each patient. Results A total of 217 patients were enrolled in this study. True rectocele was diagnosed in 68 patients at a main rectal ampulla depth of 19 mm. Furthermore, 36 patients were diagnosed with OD. Symptomatic rectocele was significantly associated with older age (p < 0.01), a higher OD symptom score (p < 0.001), and a lower grade of apical prolapse (p < 0.001). The rectal–vaginal pressure gradient was higher in patients with symptomatic rectocele (37.4 ± 11.7 cm H2O) compared with patients with asymptomatic rectocele (16.9 ± 8.4 cm H2O, p < 0.001), and patients without rectocele (17.1 ± 9.2 cm H2O, p < 0.001). Conclusion The rectal–vaginal pressure gradient was found to be a risk factor for symptomatic rectocele in patients with POP. A rectal–vaginal pressure gradient of > 27.5 cm H2O was suggested as the cut-off point of the elevated pressure gradient.

Effectiveness and Safety of Posterior Vaginal Repair with Single-Incision, Ultralightweight, Monofilament Propylene Mesh: First Evidence from a Case Series with Short-Term Results

Objective. The use of transvaginal mesh is controversial, and over time, multiple surgical methods for the treatment of posterior vaginal prolapse (PVP) have been proposed including different surgical approaches and techniques. To date, no clear conclusion has been reached about the use of mesh for reinforcing transvaginal posterior repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of a novel, ultralightweight mesh for the treatment of PVP. Methods. We performed a single-center, prospective observational study on consecutive patients referred for primary or recurrent, symptomatic stage II PVP (according to the international Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System) from April 2017 to September 2018. In all patients, transvaginal posterior repair was augmented with a single-incision, isoelastic polypropylene mesh. Data about the postoperative outcomes were collected until December 2019. Results. A total number of 15 patients were included. The median follow-up after surgery was 18 months ( IQR = 14 ). Surgery was completed in all cases without complications. Regarding the anatomical outcomes (as measured according to POP-q classification), a significant improvement was observed in terms of Bp, D, and C ( p < 0.05 ). The functional outcomes were significantly ameliorated after surgery, with a reduction of bulge symptom, stypsis, incomplete evacuation, and excessive staining ( p < 0.05 ). The quality of life was significantly improved in the majority of patients ( p < 0.05 ). Median patients’ satisfaction rate was 100% ( IQR = 22.5 % ). Neither early nor late postoperative complications occurred. Conclusions. Single-incision, ultralightweight polypropylene meshes were safe and highly effective in the treatment of PVP. As our study has some limitations, further large, controlled studies are needed.

Study of posterior vaginal wall prolapses and correlation with bowel function

Background: This study’s objectives were to describe symptoms related to bowel symptoms in women with prolapse and to compare these symptoms as per the grading of posterior vaginal prolapse.Methods: Descriptive study, 63 women answered questionnaire for assessment of bowel function and were subjected to physical examination according to the International Continence Society’s system for grading uterovaginal prolapse.Results: The distribution of pelvic organ support by overall POPQ stage was 6.4%stage 1,21%stage 2, 50% stage 3, and 23% stage 4. Women were asked to rate the extent to which they were bothered by their bowel function on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not at all and 10 being extremely. Thirty-six women (58%) reported 1 to 4, 18 (29%) reported 5 to 7, and 8 (13%) reported greater than 8. According to the furthest extent of posterior vaginal prolapse at point Bp, 22 (15.5%) were in stage 0, 46 (32.4%) were in stage I, 50 (35.2%) were in stage II, 23 (16.2%) were in stage III, and 1 (0.7%) was in stage IV. Ninety-two percent of women reported having bowel movements at least every day. When asked whether straining was required for them to have a bowel movement, 67% reported never or rarely,3% reported sometimes,1.6%) reported always. When asked whether they ever needed to help stool come out by pushing with a finger in the vagina or rectum, 77.0% reported never or rarely, 15.1% reported sometimes, (5.6%) reported usually, and (1.6%) reported always. No women had fecal incontinence, there were no clinically significant associations between any of the questions related to bowel function and severity of posterior vaginal prolapse.Conclusions: Women with uterovaginal prolapse frequently have symptoms related to bowel dysfunction but this is not associated with the severity of posterior vaginal prolapse.