Genital Prolapse Repair Using Porcine Skin Implant and Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation: Midterm Functional Outcome and Quality-of-Life Assessment

Objectives

To evaluate the midterm anatomic and functional outcome of genital prolapse repair by the vaginal route using a porcine skin implant (Pelvicol) and bilateral sacrospinous fixation.

Methods

From May 2001 to June 2006, 101 patients with Stage III-IV genital prolapse were treated using a porcine skin collagen implant and bilateral sacrospinous fixation. The functional results were evaluated using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6, Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory-8, Urogenital Distress Inventory-6, Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (including Urinary Impact Questionnaire-7, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire-7, and Colo-Rectal-Anal Impact Questionnaire-7), and Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire.

Results

Of the 101 patients, 89 (88%) completed all the questionnaires. The mean follow-up was 38 ± 18 months. An improvement was noted in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (P < .0001), Urogenital Distress Inventory-6 (P = .001), and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory scores (P < .0001) but not in the Colorectal Anal Distress Inventory-8 scores. An improvement was noted in the Urinary Impact Questionnaire-7 (P < .0001), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire-7 (P < .0001), and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire Short Form 7 (p < 0.0001) scores but not in the Colo-Rectal-Anal Impact Questionnaire-7 scores. The quartile distribution showed that women with a preoperative Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form score >133 had a 45% chance of postoperative improvement and those with a preoperative Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire Short Form 7 score >195 had an 81% chance of postoperative improvement. Using multivariate regression analysis, the preoperative Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory score was negatively predictive of satisfaction (t = −2.03, P = .05) and the preoperative Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire Short Form 7 score was positively predictive of satisfaction (t = 2.40, P = .02). No differences in the pre- and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire scores were noted.

Conclusions

The results of our study have shown that biologic implantation and bilateral sacrospinous fixation are effective in high-grade genital prolapse repair. Validated questionnaires are potentially useful tools to predict the postoperative outcome.