title: Anatomical correction of vaginal vault prolapse by uterosacral ligament fixation in women who also require a pubovaginal sling.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We describe the anatomical and functional outcome in patients who underwent vaginal vault fixation to the proximal uterosacral ligaments for the treatment of vault prolapse and who also required a concomitant pubovaginal sling for associated stress urinary incontinence as well as the repair of other sector defects.
  
  
  METHODS
  We retrospectively analyzed the records of 33 patients who underwent such repairs between November 1998 and December 2001. Endopelvic fascial defects were described using the pelvic organ prolapse quantitative system (POPQ). Outcome measures included anatomical and functional assessment of pelvic floor defects and urinary incontinence.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Preoperatively all patients complained of a vaginal bulge and stress urinary incontinence, while 17 of the 33 had urge incontinence, and 24 and 9 had POPQ stage III or IV and stage II prolapse, respectively. Mean followup was 28 months (range 6 to 43). There was significant improvement in all POPQ measurements (p <0.05). Most notably vaginal cuff support improved by a mean of 7 cm. Stages IIAp (rectocele) and IIC (cuff) prolapse developed in 4 and 2 failed cases, respectively. Stress urinary incontinence was cured in all 33 patients and urge incontinence was cured in 14 of 17, while in 27 vaginal prolapse symptoms resolved and most had improved defecation dysfunction. No patients had urinary obstructive symptoms. There were no ureteral, bladder or rectal complications but 1 patient required blood transfusion.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Suspension of the vaginal cuff to the proximal uterosacral ligaments with site specific repair of other associated endopelvic fascial defects provides excellent anatomical and functional correction of vault prolapse. Furthermore, a concomitant pubovaginal sling is a compatible repair for associated stress urinary incontinence. It did not compromise vaginal repair and prolapse repair did not jeopardize the outcome of the sling.
authors.affiliation: Division of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
authors.forename: Cindy L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Amundsen
authors.forename: Brian J
authors.initials: BJ
authors.lastname: Flynn
authors.forename: George D
authors.initials: GD
authors.lastname: Webster
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008022:Ligaments; D008875:Middle Aged; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014549:Urinary Incontinence / Q000150:complications / Q000601:surgery*; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods; D014596:Uterine Prolapse / Q000150:complications / Q000601:surgery*