Magnetic resonance imaging of vaginal support structure before and after Vecchietti procedure in women with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome

IntroductionIt is unclear how pelvic floor supporting structures might be affected by the absence of the vagina. It was the aim of this prospective study to analyze the magnetic resonance imaging morphology of pelvic support prior and after a Vecchietti procedure in women suffering Mullerian agenesis (Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome).Material and methods26 women with a diagnosis of Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome associated vaginal agenesis were recruited prospectively prior to the laparoscopic creation of a neovagina according to the Vecchietti procedure. The primary outcome measure was the magnetic resonance imaging morphology of supporting structures. Secondary outcome measures were anatomical and functional vaginal length. Follow up was conducted six months after surgery.ResultsTwenty‐six women were analyzed. Mean age was 19.8 ± 4.4 years (±SD) and mean body mass index was 23.7 ± 4.3 kg/m2 (±SD). All were Caucasian. Supporting structures consistent with cardinal and uterosacral ligaments were visible on magnetic resonance imaging in all cases (100%). There were no levator ani defects. The vaginal apex could be visualized postoperatively in 12 women (46.2%) reaching up to Level I. The vagina was visible in both Level II and III with normal relations to the pelvic walls in all cases. On gynecological examination, vaginal length was 8.8 ± 2.1 cm (mean ± SD) anatomically and 10.2 ± 2.2 cm (mean ± SD) functionally.ConclusionsThe preoperative presence of pelvic support structures into which the vagina is lengthened by the surgery likely explains the uncommon occurrence of vaginal prolapse in women who had the Vecchietti procedure.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144648/1/aogs13350_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144648/2/aogs13350.pd

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery:an international Delphi study of expert users

Background: Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. Methods: We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons’ characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. Results: The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. Conclusion: Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.</p