Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2018 August;70(4) > Minerva Ginecologica 2018 August;70(4):371-7



To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Minerva Ginecologica 2018 August;70(4):371-7

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.18.04191-6


language: English

Transvaginal native-tissue repair of vaginal vault prolapse

Rodolfo MILANI 1, Matteo FRIGERIO 1, Francesca L. VELLUCCI 2, Stefania PALMIERI 1, Federico SPELZINI 3, Stefano MANODORO 1

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, San Gerardo Hospital, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy; 2 University of Siena, Siena, Italy; 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy


BACKGROUND: Posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse repair is a challenge for pelvic floor surgeons. Native-tissue repair procedures imply lower costs and reduced morbidity. Our study aims to evaluate operative data, complications, objective, subjective and functional outcomes of transvaginal native-tissue repair for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. We also investigated differences among available techniques.
METHODS: Retrospective study including patients with symptomatic vaginal vault prolapse (≥stage 2), previously treated with transvaginal vault suspension through native-tissue repair. Objective recurrence was defined as the descent of at least one compartment ≥II stage according to Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system or need of reoperation. Subjective recurrence was defined as the presence of bulging symptoms. Patients satisfaction was evaluated with PGI-I Score.
RESULTS: The study included 111 patients. Apical suspension was achieved either by uterosacral ligament suspension (16), levator myorrhaphy (17), iliococcygeus fascia fixation (65) or sacrospinous ligament fixation (13). No intraoperative complications were observed. Perioperative/postoperative complications occurred in 8 patients (7.2%). Mean follow-up was 24.5±12.1 months. Objective recurrence was observed in 28 patients (25.2%). Reintervention was required by 3 patients (2.7%). Subjective recurrence was referred by 6 patients (5.4%). Mean satisfaction evaluated with PGI-I Score was 1.2±0.6. No differences in terms of operative data, overall complications, objective, subjective cure rate and perceived satisfaction were found among different techniques.
CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal repair with native-tissue procedures is safe and effective in correcting posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse and represents a valid alternative to prosthetic procedures for vaginal vault prolapse treatment.

KEY WORDS: Ligaments - Reconstructive surgical procedures - Pelvic organ prolapse

top of page