Alexandriah Alas

Spinal anesthesia can be a potential risk factor for postoperative urinary retention (POUR). Our objective was to compare POUR rates for outpatient vaginal pelvic floor surgeries when using spinal versus general anesthesia. Our hypothesis was that spinal anesthesia would have higher POUR rates compared with general anesthesia.

Spinal anesthesia has been reported to be a risk factor for postoperative urinary retention (POUR) in various surgical specialties. We hypothesized that spinal anesthesia was a risk factor for POUR after outpatient vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

There is a paucity of data on the success of vaginal surgery for severe prolapse. The authors hypothesized that the success rates of total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH) with McCall culdoplasty in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and in women with less severe POP are similar.

After the US Food and Drug Administration issued a safety warning concerning vaginal mesh implants in 2008, their use in correction of pelvic floor defects have decreased in the United States (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm479732.htm). However, we are still treating patients who have had complications associated with their use, rectovaginal fistulas (RVFs) being one of them. Rectovaginal fistulas are considered complex if greater than 2.5 cm, recurrent, associated with inflammatory bowel disease, or if they are proximal in location. Various surgical techniques have been described for treating RVFs. Interposition grafts such as Martius, gracilis, omental J flaps, and rectus abdominis flaps have been used extensively in correcting RVFs (Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109(8):1141–1157). However, these techniques may increase morbidity or have poor cosmesis. Pelvic surgeons have chronicled the use of biologic grafts for fistula repair. Of the various biologic grafts in use, there have been no reports describing the use of porcine urinary bladder matrix (UBM) for fistula repair. We report on 2 cases of large, complex RVFs secondary to mesh erosion, which were effectively treated with transvaginal repair using the UBM. An 80-year-old woman was referred by the colorectal service to our urogynecology service with complaints of rectal bleeding and vaginal spotting secondary to mesh erosion. Surgical history included hysterectomy with mesh augmented posterior repair with synthetic midurethral sling placement in 2002. Examination revealed a 3-cm mesh exposure located in the middle third of the posterior vaginal wall. On rectovaginal examination, a 3-cm full-thickness RVF with through-and-through mesh erosion was noted between the rectum and vagina. A 65-year-old woman presented to our service with complaints of passage of fecal material through the vagina. Surgical history was significant for hysterectomy in 1988 and prolapse repair with anterior and posterior vaginal mesh in 2009. Subsequently in 2011, she had part of the mesh removed because of exposure. Vaginal examination revealed mesh exposure at the right sulcus of the anterior wall consistent with evidence of prior sling and another mesh exposure on the posterior vaginal wall. Rectovaginal examination revealed palpable mesh in the rectovaginal septum with a 3-cm large and complex fistula. Both of our patients underwent transvaginal excision of mesh, RVF repair, and posterior repair with augmentation with UBM. At 6- and 10-month follow-up, they reported complete resolution of their symptoms with no fistula noted on physical examination. Typically, traditional repair with use of muscular advancement flaps is performed for complex RVF closures. Recently, however, various biologic agents have been successfully used to augment RVF repair. In our cases, the use of UBM led to successful follow-up at 6 to 8 months. Despite existing literature, there remains a void in the depth of knowledge regarding the UBM grafts. Larger studies utilizing it for repair of RVFs are warranted to further understand the success and effectiveness of the UBM grafts for RVF repair.

Background: Rectal prolapse is a disorder of the pelvic floor in which the layers of the rectal mucosa protrude outward through the anus. Surgical repair is the mainstay of treatment. Options include intra-abdominal procedures such as rectopexy and perineal procedures such as the Delorme and Altemeier perineal rectosigmoidectomy. Rectal and vaginal prolapse can often coexist. However, to our knowledge, there are no reported cases of rectal prolapse resolved by the repair of a compressive enterocele abutting the anterior rectal wall through a vaginal approach alone. We present a novel case of rectal prolapse that resolved by correction of the vaginal defect. Case: A 53-year-old female with prior history of abdominal hysterectomy, presented to the urogynecology clinic with complaints of vaginal bulge, urge urinary incontinence, and rectal bulge on straining with no fecal incontinence for several years. On physical examination, she was found to have stage 2 anterior, posterior, and apical vaginal prolapse and reducible rectal prolapse. Colorectal surgery (CRS) evaluation was requested, which revealed minimal anterior mucosal prolapse on Valsalva with no full-thickness prolapse. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defecogram was performed, which demonstrated a large rectocele, enterocele, and small bowel prolapsing between the rectum and vagina during the evacuation phase, with no rectal prolapse. The decision to proceed with vaginal prolapse surgery without concomitant rectal prolapse repair was made, as the patient had no fecal incontinence, and the degree of rectal prolapse was minimal. On the day of surgery, which was 2 months later, she presented with a 2-cm anterior rectal prolapse with no incontinence. Colorectal surgery was consulted again, but unavailable. After counseling, the patient wished to proceed with her planned surgery. It was felt that correcting the anterior rectocele and enterocele, thereby eliminating the descent of the bowel on the anterior rectal wall, might cause resolution of the rectal prolapse. She then underwent a sacrospinous ligament fixation with mesh through an anterior vaginal approach, enterocele repair, Moschcowitz culdoplasty, and posterior colporraphy. She had an uneventful postoperative course and noted resolution of both vaginal and rectal prolapse. At 54 weeks, she continues without any complaints of rectal prolapse, which was confirmed on physical examination. Conclusions: Usually, the choice of surgical approach is tailored to each individual based on anatomy, age, comorbidity, and patient factors. Correcting both vaginal and rectal prolapse at the same time with a minimally invasive approach is an advantage to the patient. Restoring the apical, anterior, and posterior vaginal wall anatomy and an enterocele repair through the vaginal route caused resolution of the rectal prolapse. Further research is required as to whether rectal prolapse caused by anterior rectal compression needs an additional procedure or repair of the vaginal prolapse and enterocele alone will suffice.

Our aim was to test the feasibility of a set of quality of care indicators for urinary incontinence and at the same time measure the care provided to women with urinary incontinence in 2 clinical settings. This was a pilot test of a set of quality of care indicators. A total of 20 quality of care indicators were previously developed using the RAND Appropriateness Method. These quality of care indicators were used to measure care received for 137 women with a urinary incontinence diagnosis in a 120-physician hospital based multispecialty medical group. We also performed an abstraction of 146 patient records from primary care offices in Southern California. These charts were previously used as part of ACOVE (Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders Project). As a post-hoc secondary analysis, the 2 populations were compared with respect to quality, as measured by compliance with the quality of care indicators. In the ACOVE population, 37.7% of patients with urinary incontinence underwent a pelvic examination vs 97.8% in the multispecialty medical group. Only 15.6% of cases in the multispecialty medical group and 14.2% in ACOVE (p = 0.86) had documentation that pelvic floor exercises were offered. Relatively few women with a body mass index of greater than 25 kg/m(2) were counseled about weight loss in either population (20.9% multispecialty medical group vs 26.1% ACOVE, p = 0.76). For women undergoing sling surgery, documentation of counseling about risks was lacking and only 9.3% of eligible cases (multispecialty medical group only) had documentation of the risks of mesh. Quality of care indicators are a feasible means to measure the care provided to women with urinary incontinence. Care varied by population studied and yet deficiencies in care were prevalent in both patient populations studied.

There is a paucity of data evaluating the risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in women with no preoperative occult SUI. We hypothesized that apical suspension procedures would have higher rates of de novo SUI. This was a retrospective database review of women who had surgery for POP from 2003 to 2013 and developed de novo SUI at ≥6 months postoperatively. Preoperatively, all patients had a negative stress test and no evidence of occult SUI on prolapse reduction urodynamics. The primary objective was to establish the incidence of de novo SUI in women with no objective evidence of preoperative occult SUI after POP surgeries at ≥6 months. A total number of 274 patients underwent POP surgery. The overall incidence of de novo SUI was 9.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.07–0.14]. However, the incidence of de novo SUI in those with no baseline complaint of SUI was 4.4 % (95 % CI 0.03–0.1). There was no difference in de novo SUI rates between apical [9.7 % (n = 57)] and nonapical [10.5 %, (n = 217] procedures (p = 0.8482). Multivariate logistic regression identified sacrocolpopexy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.54, 95 % CI 1.2–14.7] and those with a baseline complaint of SUI (adjusted OR 5.1; 95 % CI 2.2–12) as risk factors for de novo SUI. The incidence of de novo SUI after surgery for POP without occult SUI was 9.9 %. We recommend counseling patients about the risk of de novo SUI and offering a staged procedure.

We aimed to evaluate the success of suburethral slings in women ≥70 years of age. This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent suburethral sling placement. Subjects were separated into three groups: ≤50 years of age (group 1), 51 to 69 years of age (group 2), and ≥70 years of age (group 3). The primary aim was to evaluate success as defined by ≥ improved on a validated patient improvement satisfaction score and a negative postoperative standardized stress test. There were 1,464 subjects. Mean age was 44.51 ± 4.25 (n = 296) for group 1, 60.5 ± 5.28 (n = 680) for group 2, and 77.68 ± 5.41 (n = 488) for group 3. The median follow-up was 26 (6–498) weeks, 45 (6–498) weeks, and 42 (6–543) weeks, for groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated no difference in sling success according to age stratification. Lower success was associated with having had a previous sling (adjusted OR 0.25, 95 % CI 0.12–0.5), having detrusor overactivity (adjusted OR 0.44, 95 % CI 0.28–0.69), and having a history of urge urinary incontinence (UUI) for ≥ 4 years (adjusted OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.31–0.95). There is no difference in sling success between the elderly and younger populations. However, those with previous sling surgery or a long standing history of UUI may be at a higher risk of failure.

Introduction and hypothesis This video demonstrates a transvaginal technique for vaginal vault suspension using an apical sling suspended from the sacrospinous ligaments. Methods This was a retrospective review of apical sling procedures performed from July 2013 to November 2014. The technique is started by marking the vaginal apex. A posterior dissection is performed and the sacrospinous ligaments are identified after dissection into the pararectal space. A 10-cm piece of monofilament, inelastic polypropylene tape is attached to the underside of the vaginal apex. Polypropylene sutures are placed into the sacrospinous ligament and threaded though the lateral edges of the apical sling and tied down, restoring apical support. Finally, the vaginal epithelium is closed. Results A total of 67 women underwent an apical sling procedure with 70 % (47/67) completing 6 months follow-up. The subjective cure rate (“cured” or “greatly improved”) was 78.7 % and the objective cure rate (anatomical success, defined as apical prolapse stage ≤1) was 100 % (47 patients). Conclusions Our apical sling sacrospinous ligament fixation approach is a unique, minimal mesh approach using a tape commonly used for midurethral slings to suspend the vaginal apex. We achieved high anatomical success and patient satisfaction.

Pelvic organ prolapse is a prevalent condition, with up to 12 % of women requiring surgery in their lifetime. This manuscript reviews the treatment options for apical prolapse, specifically. Both conservative and surgical management options are acceptable and should be based on patient preferences. Pessaries are the most commonly used conservative management options. Guided pelvic floor muscle training is more beneficial than self-taught Kegel exercises, though may not be effective for high stage or apical prolapse. Surgical treatment options include abdominal and vaginal approaches, the latter of which can be performed open, laparoscopically, and robotically. A systematic review has demonstrated that sacrocolpopexy has better long-term success for treatment of apical prolapse than vaginal techniques, but vaginal surgery can be considered an acceptable alternative. Recent data has demonstrated equal efficacy between uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension at 1 year. To date, two randomized controlled trials have demonstrated equal efficacy between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Though abdominal approaches may have increased long-term durability, when counseling their patients, surgeons should consider longer operating times and increased pain and cost with these procedures compared to vaginal surgery. • Pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with a physical therapist is the best approach to conservative management of apical prolapse [10]. • Pessaries should be managed with regular follow-up care to minimize complications [14•]. • Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy appears as effective as the gold standard abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) [42•]. • Robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and laparoscopic assisted sacrocolpopexy (LASC) are equally effective and should be utilized by pelvic floor surgeons based on their skill level and expertise in laparoscopy [44, 45•]. • Uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS) are considered equally effective procedures and can be combined with a vaginal hysterectomy. • Obliterative procedures are effective but are considered definitive surgery [24••]. • The use of transvaginal mesh has been shown in some studies to be superior to native tissue repairs with regard to anatomic outcomes, but complication rates are higher. Transvaginal mesh should be reserved for surgeons with adequate training so that complications are minimized.