The outcome of Manchester operation in cervical elongation patients with pelvic organ prolapse at Dr. Soetomo Hospital, Surabaya from January 2015 to June 2017

Mokhamad Anhar Dani, Azami Denas Azinar, Eighty Mardiyan Kurniawati, Hari Paraton, Gatut Hardianto, Tri Hastono Setyo Hadi

= http://dx.doi.org/10.20473/mog.V28I12020.24-31
Abstract views = 84 times | downloads = 32 times

Abstract


Objectives: the aim of this study is to report the outcome of Manchester operation in cervical elongation patients with pelvic organ prolapse at Dr. Soetomo Hospital, Surabaya from January 2015 to June 2017.

Case Report: During January 2015 until June 2017 there were seven patients already performed Manchester operation, however only four patients routine control. In all four cases, three cases were obtained with cervical elongation with a pelvic organ prolap (POP) and one case with cervical elongation. Perform evaluation before and after operation by using questionnaire and inspection of POP-Q system. During the evaluation there was one case with repeated lump complaints diagnosed with a uterine prolap, while one of it was with a posterior compartment prolap, but the patient did not complain during the evaluation. Both of these patients refused to reoperate after evaluation.

Conclusion: After Manchester operation in cervical elongation with POP had two cases with repeated prolapse. Questionnaires and POP-Q systems were used to diagnose and evaluate preoperative and postoperative Manchester.


Keywords


cervical elongation, prolap, questionnaire, Manchester operation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Mothes AR, Mothes H, Fröber R, et al. Systematic classification of uterine cervical elongation in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;200:40–4.

Sirimai K, Titapant V. Elongation of the Ulerine Cervix?: a Case Reporl. Siriraj Hosp Gaz. 1997;49(12):1188–90.

Finamore P, Goldstein H, Vakili B. Comparison of estimated cervical length from the pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam and actual cervical length at hysterectomy: Can we accurately determine cervical elongation? Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery. 2009;15(1):17-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181951e98.

Geoffrion R, Louie K, Hyakutake MT, Koenig NA, Lee T, Filipenko JD. Study of Prolapse-Induced Cervical Elongation. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada [Internet]. 2016;38(3):265–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2016.01.008

Berger MB, Ramanah R, Guire JE, DeLancey JOL. Is cervical elongation associated with pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23(8): 1095–1103.

Ayhan A, Esin S, Guven S, Salman C, Ozyuncu O. The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. 2006;228–33.

Rouzi AA, Sahly NN, Shobkshi AS, Abduljabbar HS. Manchester repair: An alternative to hysterectomy. Saudi Med J. 2009;30(11):1473–5.

Shaikh R, Sardesai S. Shirodkar ’ s Extended Manchester Repair?: A Conservative Vaginal Surgery for Genital Prolapse in Young Women and Reinforcement of Weak Uterosacral Ligaments with Merselene Tape?: Retrospective and Prospective Study. 2014;10(2):263–6.

Hiremath P, Bansal N, Hiremath R. Extreme cervical elongation. Int J Reprod Contraception, Obstet Gynecol [Internet]. 2014;3(3):777–9. Available from: http://www.ijrcog.org/?mno=161420

Giannini A, Russo E, Cano A, Chedraui P, Goulis DG, Lambrinoudaki I, et al. Maturitas Current management of pelvic organ prolapse in aging women?: EMAS clinical guide. Maturitas [Internet]. 2018;(January):1–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.02.004

Jones KA, Moalli PA. Pathophysiology of Pelvic Organ Prolapse. 2010;16(2):79–89.

Hoffman BL, Schorge JO, Bradshaw KD, Halvorson LM, Schaffer JI, Corton MM. Williams Gynecology. Third edit. New York: Mc Graw Hill; 2016. 538-558 p.

Berek JS. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology. 14 th. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. 897-930 p.

Pizarro-Berdichevsky J, Clifton MM, Goldman HB. Evaluation and Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Elderly Women. Clin Geriatr Med [Internet]. 2015;31(4):507–21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2015.06.008

Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, et al. Anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2014;121:102-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12454

Unlubligin E, Sivaslioglu AA, Ilhan TT, Kumtepe Y, Dolen I. Which One is the Appropriate Approach for Uterine Prolapse?: Manchester Procedure or Vaginal Hysterectomy?? 2013;33(2):321–5.

Komesu YM, Rogers RG, Kammerer-Doak DN, et al. Posterior repair and sexual function. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(1):101.e1–101.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.054

Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ciliska D, Warren R. Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2013:24(2):35. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-35.

Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Porena M, Mearini L, Costantini E. Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol [Internet]. 2010;7(11):626–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.164

Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Majalah Obstetri dan Ginekologi

          

Statistic



Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License