Download PDF
Aktuelle Urol 2018; 49(01): 52-59
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-123273
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Chirurgische Therapie des urogenitalen Deszensus

Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse
Leonidas Karapanos
Klinik für Urologie, Uro-Onkologie, spezielle urologische und roboter-assistierte Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Köln
,
Johannes Salem
Klinik für Urologie, Uro-Onkologie, spezielle urologische und roboter-assistierte Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Köln
,
Ilgar Akbarov
Klinik für Urologie, Uro-Onkologie, spezielle urologische und roboter-assistierte Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Köln
,
Axel Heidenreich
,
Vahudin Zugor
Klinik für Urologie, Uro-Onkologie, spezielle urologische und roboter-assistierte Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Köln
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
01 February 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Urogenitale Prolapserkrankungen sind mit hoher Prävalenz und unterschiedlicher Morbidität belastet. Klinisch imponieren Senkungs- und Miktionsbeschwerden mit Obstruktion, Drangsymptomatik und Begleitharninkontinenz. Die Prävalenz einer Beckenbodeninsuffizienz wird auf etwa 30 – 50 % geschätzt. Aufgrund der steigenden Lebenserwartungen und den damit verbundenen erhöhten Aktivitäten der Frauen ist sogar mit einem weiteren Anstieg der Senkungsinzidenz zu rechnen. Eine nicht geringe Zahl stellen dabei Rezidive dar. Schon heute zählen Operationen zur Therapie des Deszensus zu den häufigsten durchgeführten Operationen der Gynäkologie. In den USA werden jährlich über 220.000 Senkungsoperationen durchgeführt. Das Ziel der operativen Therapie ist die Behebung der jeweiligen Beschwerdesymptomatik mit konsekutiver Verbesserung der Lebensqualität. Ziel der Arbeit ist, die operativen Ergebnisse und Techniken unterschiedlicher Deszensuserkrankungen zu evaluieren und deskriptiv zu erfassen.

Summary

Female pelvic organ prolapse is a widely prevalent condition and is associated with variable morbidity. It encompasses a number of clinical conditions, including subvesical obstruction, overactive bladder symptoms, sexual dysfunction and urinary und fecal incontinence. The prevalence of pelvic insufficiency is estimated to be between 30 and 50 %. As life expectancy is increasing and the elderly population is growing, there will be an increased incidence of the condition and growing demand for pelvic floor treatment in the future. The incidence of recurrent pelvic floor prolapse is also growing.

The goal of surgical management is the restoration of pelvic anatomy and bladder, vaginal and bowel function, resolution of patient symptoms and improvement in quality of life. The objective of this review is to present the main surgical procedures for different subtypes of genital prolapse and to evaluate their outcomes and complications. During the last ten years, technologies for the minimally invasive approach have advanced and robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy is now equivalent to classical vaginal and transabdominal procedures.

Schlüsselwörter

Deszensus genitalis - Prolaps - Sakrokolpopexie - Kolporrhaphia - vaginale Netzinterposition

Key words

Female descensus genitalis - vaginal prolapse - Sacrocolpopexy - colporrhaphy - transvaginal mesh
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M. et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 2012; 31: 415-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Barber MD, Cundiff GW, Weidner AC. et al. Accuracy of clinical assessment of paravaginal defects in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181: 87-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal 2013; 24: 1783-1790
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rachaneni S, Atan IK, Shek KL. et al. Digital rectal examination in the evaluation of rectovaginal septal defects. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 1401-1405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dietz HP. Pelvic Floor Ultrasound: A Review. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 60: 58-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alapati S, Jambhekar K. Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Pelvic Floor. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2017; 38: 188-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Arenholt LTS, Pedersen BG, Glavind K. et al. Paravaginal defect: anatomy, clinical findings, and imaging. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 661-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hui SY, Chan SC, Lam SY. et al. A prospective study on the prevalence of hydronephrosis in women with pelvic organ prolapse and their outcomes after treatment. Int Urogynecol J 2011; 22: 1529-1534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Li C, Gong Y, Wang B. The efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2016; 27: 981-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Panman C, Wiegersma M, Kollen BJ. et al. Two-year effects and cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in mildpelvic organ prolapse: a randomised controlled trial in primary care. BJOG 2017; 124: 511-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yimphong T, Temtanakitpaisan T, Buppasiri P. et al. Discontinuation rate and adverse events after 1 year of vaginal pessary use in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2017; DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3445-x. [Epub ahead of print]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Baeßler K, Aigmüller T, Albrich S. et al. Diagnosis and Therapy of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2eLevel, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016; 76: 1287-1301
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Balzarro M, Rubilotta E, Porcaro AB. et al. Long-term follow-up of anterior vaginal repair: A comparison among colporrhaphy, colporrhaphy with reinforcement by xenograft, and mesh. Neurourol Urodyn 2017; DOI: 10.1002/nau.23288. [Epub ahead of print]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tamanini JT. N, de Oliveira Souza Castro R. C, Tamanini JM. et al. A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Treatment of Anterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse: Medium Term Followup. The Journal of Urology 2015; 193: 1298-1304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R. et al. A 3-year follow-up after anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2016; 123: 136-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sun Y, Tang C, Luo D. et al. The treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapsed by repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy. International Urology and Nephrology 2016; 48: 155-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Glazener C, Breeman S, Elders A. et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study - results from the PROSPECT Study. Health Technol Assess 2016; 20: 1-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Schiavi MC, DʼOria O, Faiano P. et al. Vaginal Native Tissue Repair for Posterior Compartment Prolapse: Long-Term Analysis of Sexual Function and Quality of Life in 151 Patients. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2017; DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000463. [Epub ahead of print]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Marks BK, Goldman HB. What is the gold standard for posterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: Mesh or native tissue?. Current Urology Reports 2012; 13: 216-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 De Tayrac R, Sentilhes L. Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24: 1859-1872
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ren C, Song XC, Zhu L. et al. Prospective cohort study on the outcomes of sacrospinous ligament fixation using conventional instruments in treating stage III-IV pelvic organ prolapse. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2017; 52: 369-373
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chen Y, Hua K. Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginalsacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2017; 137: 164-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Coolen AWM, van IJsselmuiden MN, van Oudheusden AMJ. et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse, a randomized controlled trial: SALTO-2 trial, study protocol. BMC Womens Health 2017; 17: 52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Milani R, Frigerio M, Cola A. et al. Outcomes of Transvaginal High Uterosacral Ligaments Suspension: Over 500-Patient Single-Center Study. Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery 2018; 24: 39-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kapoor S, Sivanesan K, Robertson JA. et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 1285-1294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rosati M, Bramante S, Conti F. A review on the role of laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2014; 26: 281-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years’ experience. International Urogynecology Journal 2017; 28: 1241-1248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Grimminck K, Mourik SL, Tjin-Asjoe F. et al. Long-term follow-up and quality of life after robot assisted sacrohysteropexy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 206: 27-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Costantini E, Porena M, Lazzeri M. et al. Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair: role of hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 2013; 24: 1481-1487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lone F, Curnow T, Thomas SA. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse using validated questionnaires: 2-year prospective study. Int Urogynecol J 2017; DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3405-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA. et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal 2016; 27: 93-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Nair R, Nikolopoulos KI, Claydon LS. Clinical outcomes in women undergoing laparoscopic hysteropexy: A systematic review. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2017; 208: 71-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bochenska K, Leader-Cramer A, Mueller M. et al. Perioperative complications following colpocleisis with and without concomitant vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 1671-1675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mikos T, Chatzipanteli M, Grimbizis GF. et al. Enlightening the mechanisms of POP recurrence after LeFort colpocleisis. Case report and review. Int Urogynecol J 2017; 28: 971-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jones KA, Zhuo Y, Solak S. et al. Hysterectomy at the time of colpocleisis: a decision analysis. Int Urogynecol J 2016; 27: 805-810
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P. et al. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2014; 66: 303-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK. et al. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 1128-1137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar