Product Code Database
Pelvic organ prolapse ( POP) is characterized by descent of pelvic organs from their normal positions into the vagina. In women, the condition usually occurs when the pelvic floor collapses after gynecological cancer treatment, childbirth or heavy lifting. Injury incurred to fascia membranes and other connective structures can result in cystocele, rectocele or both. Treatment can involve dietary and lifestyle changes, physical therapy, or surgery.
Posterior wall
Uterine prolapse
| + Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) ! Stage !! Description |
| No prolapse anterior and posterior points are all −3 cm, and C or D is between −TVL and −(TVL−2) cm. |
| The criteria for stage 0 are not met, and the most distal prolapse is more than 1 cm above the level of the hymen (less than −1 cm). |
| The most distal prolapse is between 1 cm above and 1 cm below the hymen (at least one point is −1, 0, or +1). |
| The most distal prolapse is more than 1 cm below the hymen but no further than 2 cm less than TVL. |
| Represents complete procidentia or vault eversion; the most distal prolapse protrudes to at least (TVL−2) cm. |
A pessary, a rubber or silicone rubber device fitted to the patient is also a non-surgical option, it is inserted into the vagina and may be retained for up to several months. Vaginal pessaries can immediately relieve prolapse and prolapse-related symptoms. Pessaries are a good choice of treatment for women who wish to maintain fertility, are poor surgical candidates, or who may not be able to attend physical therapy. Pessaries require a provider to fit the device, but most can be removed, cleaned, and replaced by the woman herself; however, others have this done for them by a clinician biannually. A trial compared the two approaches and found that, compared with clinic-based care, self-management was associated with a similar quality of life, fewer complications, and was more cost-effective. Pessaries should be offered as a non-surgical alternative for women considering surgery.
Evidence does not support the use of transvaginal surgical mesh compared with native tissue repair for anterior compartment prolapse owing to increased morbidity. For posterior vaginal repair, the use of mesh or graft material does not seem to provide any benefits.
Compared to native tissue repair, transvaginal permanent mesh likely reduces the perception of vaginal prolapse sensation, the risk of recurrent prolapse, and of having repeat surgery specifically only for prolapse. Transvaginal mesh (TVM) has a greater risk of bladder injury and of needing repeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence or mesh exposure. The use of a TVM in treating vaginal prolapses is associated with severe side effects including organ perforation, infection, and pain.
Safety and efficacy of many newer meshes is unknown. Thousands of class action have been filed and settled against several manufacturers of TVM devices.
For surgical treatment of apical vaginal prolapse, going through the abdomen (sacral colpopexy) may have better outcomes than a surgical approach that goes through the vagina.
|
|
