Pelvic posterior compartment defects: comparative study of two vaginal surgical procedures

This study was undertaken to compare two surgical techniques for rectocele repair. Between January 2005 and December 2010, 180 patients with III grade symptomatic rectocele were enrolled in this alternative prospective randomized study. 90 patients (group A) were treated with perineal body anchorage...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Vito Leanza, Eva Intagliata, Gianluca Leanza, Rosario Vecchio
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PAGEPress Publications 2013-11-01
Series:Urogynaecologia International Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.urogynaecologia.org/index.php/uij/article/view/153
_version_ 1818013602389426176
author Vito Leanza
Eva Intagliata
Gianluca Leanza
Rosario Vecchio
author_facet Vito Leanza
Eva Intagliata
Gianluca Leanza
Rosario Vecchio
author_sort Vito Leanza
collection DOAJ
description This study was undertaken to compare two surgical techniques for rectocele repair. Between January 2005 and December 2010, 180 patients with III grade symptomatic rectocele were enrolled in this alternative prospective randomized study. 90 patients (group A) were treated with perineal body anchorage of posterior septum, and 90 (group B) with the traditional Denonvilliers’ transversal suture. Pre- and post-operative data, including Ap and Bp values, recurrence rates and quality of life was assessed. The mean follow-up was 22 months (range 9-72 months). For statistical purpose, Student’s t test, chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were evaluated. Post-operatively, in group A Ap and Bp value were respectively –2.0±1.0 and –2.5±0.5 (P<0.001 for both values). In group B, Ap and Bp value were respectively –1.9±2.1 and –2.1±0.9 (P<0.001 for both values). A total of 81 (93.1%) patients in group A and 76 (86.3%) in group B reported improvement in symptoms (P=0.222) after surgery. Recurrence rates were 5 (5.7%) and 6 (6.8%) respectively (P=0.984). Quality of life improved significantly in both groups. In conclusion, both techniques are effective for the posterior compartment repair.
first_indexed 2024-04-14T06:35:17Z
format Article
id doaj.art-2cdbe2810f824228ac2739902571dde3
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1121-3086
2038-8314
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-14T06:35:17Z
publishDate 2013-11-01
publisher PAGEPress Publications
record_format Article
series Urogynaecologia International Journal
spelling doaj.art-2cdbe2810f824228ac2739902571dde32022-12-22T02:07:30ZengPAGEPress PublicationsUrogynaecologia International Journal1121-30862038-83142013-11-0127110.4081/uij.2013.e593Pelvic posterior compartment defects: comparative study of two vaginal surgical proceduresVito Leanza0Eva Intagliata1Gianluca Leanza2Rosario Vecchio3Department of Surgery, University of CataniaDepartment of Surgery, University of CataniaDepartment of Surgery, University of CataniaDepartment of Surgery, University of CataniaThis study was undertaken to compare two surgical techniques for rectocele repair. Between January 2005 and December 2010, 180 patients with III grade symptomatic rectocele were enrolled in this alternative prospective randomized study. 90 patients (group A) were treated with perineal body anchorage of posterior septum, and 90 (group B) with the traditional Denonvilliers’ transversal suture. Pre- and post-operative data, including Ap and Bp values, recurrence rates and quality of life was assessed. The mean follow-up was 22 months (range 9-72 months). For statistical purpose, Student’s t test, chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were evaluated. Post-operatively, in group A Ap and Bp value were respectively –2.0±1.0 and –2.5±0.5 (P<0.001 for both values). In group B, Ap and Bp value were respectively –1.9±2.1 and –2.1±0.9 (P<0.001 for both values). A total of 81 (93.1%) patients in group A and 76 (86.3%) in group B reported improvement in symptoms (P=0.222) after surgery. Recurrence rates were 5 (5.7%) and 6 (6.8%) respectively (P=0.984). Quality of life improved significantly in both groups. In conclusion, both techniques are effective for the posterior compartment repair.http://www.urogynaecologia.org/index.php/uij/article/view/153rectoceleposterior compartmentprolapse.
spellingShingle Vito Leanza
Eva Intagliata
Gianluca Leanza
Rosario Vecchio
Pelvic posterior compartment defects: comparative study of two vaginal surgical procedures
Urogynaecologia International Journal
rectocele
posterior compartment
prolapse.
title Pelvic posterior compartment defects: comparative study of two vaginal surgical procedures
title_full Pelvic posterior compartment defects: comparative study of two vaginal surgical procedures
title_fullStr Pelvic posterior compartment defects: comparative study of two vaginal surgical procedures
title_full_unstemmed Pelvic posterior compartment defects: comparative study of two vaginal surgical procedures
title_short Pelvic posterior compartment defects: comparative study of two vaginal surgical procedures
title_sort pelvic posterior compartment defects comparative study of two vaginal surgical procedures
topic rectocele
posterior compartment
prolapse.
url http://www.urogynaecologia.org/index.php/uij/article/view/153
work_keys_str_mv AT vitoleanza pelvicposteriorcompartmentdefectscomparativestudyoftwovaginalsurgicalprocedures
AT evaintagliata pelvicposteriorcompartmentdefectscomparativestudyoftwovaginalsurgicalprocedures
AT gianlucaleanza pelvicposteriorcompartmentdefectscomparativestudyoftwovaginalsurgicalprocedures
AT rosariovecchio pelvicposteriorcompartmentdefectscomparativestudyoftwovaginalsurgicalprocedures