The Effect of Posterior Colporrhaphy Performed Concurrently with Midurethral Sling Surgery on the Sexual Function of Women with Stress Urinary Incontinence / 대한배뇨장애요실금학회지

PURPOSE: Some women choose to undergo posterior colporrhaphy (PC) concurrently with procedures for SUI to regain sexual confidence and improve sexual function. We determine the effect of PC on sexual function in women requiring a midurethral sling for SUI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 119 women were retrospectively reviewed 81 women had the midurethral sling alone (Group A), and 38 women voluntarily had PC concurrently with the midurethral sling (Group B). Sexual function was evaluated using the FSFI before and after surgery. RESULTS: The postoperative composite scores were significantly increased in both groups (Group A: p=0.02; Group B: p=0.04), and significant increases were observed in 'desire,' 'arousal' and 'satisfaction'. However, there were no significant differences in the composite score or six domainscores between the two groups. CONCLUSION: PC performed concurrently with midurethral sling for treatment of SUI does not provide any additional benefits towards improving the sexual function.

Comparison of Rectoanal Physiologic Changes and Treatment Results between Transanal Repair and Transanal Repair with Posterior Colporrhaphy in Patients with Rectocele

PURPOSE: Rectoceles are often associated with anorectal symptoms. Various surgical techniques have been described to repair rectoceles, but the surgical results vary. The aim of this study was to compare transanal repair (TAR) and transanal repair with posterior colporrhaphy (TAR+PC). METHODS: The records of 58 patients operated on during a 56-month period were reviewed. Of those 26 patients had a TAR, and 32 patients had a TAR+PC. Interviews and anorectal physiologic studies were performed preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: The recurrence rate after a TAR+PC was lower than the recurrence rate after a TAR (TAR 19.2% vs. TAR+PC 3.1%). The rectal sensation (sensory threshold: TAR 64.8+/-18.9 ml vs. TAR+PC 56.1+/-23.67 ml; earliest defecation urge: TAR 116.4+/-29.5 ml vs. TAR+PC 104.8+/-31.2 ml) was more improved after a TAR+PC. CONCLUSIONS: A TAR+PC for treatment of a rectocele is safe and effectively corrects obstructed defecation. The improvement probably relates, at least in part, to rectal sensational factors other than the dimensions of the rectocele.