Site-specific rectocele repair compared with standard posterior colporrhaphy

Yoram Abramov, Sanjay Gandhi, Roger P. Goldberg, Sylvia M. Botros, Christina Kwon, Peter K. Sand

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

117 Scopus citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the anatomic and functional outcomes of site-specific rectocele repair and standard posterior colporrhaphy. METHODS: We reviewed charts of all patients who underwent repair of advanced posterior vaginal prolapse in our institution between July 1998 and June 2002 with at least 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: This study comprised 124 consecutive patients following site-specific rectocele repair and 183 consecutive patients following standard posterior colporrhaphy without levator ani plication. Baseline characteristics, including age, body mass index, parity, previous pelvic surgeries, and preoperative prolapse were not significantly different betweea the 2 study groups. Recurrence of rectocele beyond the midvaginal plane (33% versus 14%, P = .001) and beyond the hymenal ring (11% versus 4%, P = .02), recurrence of a symptomatic bulge (11% versus 4%, P = .02), and postoperative Bp point (-2.2 versus -2.7 cm, P = .001) were significantly higher after the site-specific rectocele repair. Rates of postoperative dyspareunia (16% versus 17%), constipation (37% versus 34%), and fecal incontinence (19% versus 18%) were not significantly different between the 2 study groups. CONCLUSION: Site-specific rectocele repair is associated with higher anatomic recurrence rates and similar rates of dyspareunia and bowel symptoms than standard posterior colporrhaphy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)314-318
Number of pages5
JournalObstetrics and gynecology
Volume105
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2005
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Site-specific rectocele repair compared with standard posterior colporrhaphy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this