Adi Weintraub

Aims: A variety of surgical techniques are available for vaginal prolapse repair, indicating a lack of consensus. A debate regarding the utility of hydrodissection for splitting the surgical plane of the vaginal wall exists. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of hydrodissection in anterior colporrhaphy (AC). Materials: Patients undergoing primary AC were randomly assigned to an approach with (study group) versus without (control group) hydrodissection. Five surgeons performed both techniques, and the trimmed vaginal tissue was retrieved for histological analysis. Two pathologists, blinded to the surgical approach, evaluated the presence of a loose connective tissue at the surgical dissection plane (controversially deemed ‘fascia’, as explained in this article). In addition, we compared the operative time, pain score and haemoglobin levels. After statistical analysis, data were presented using percentile, and statistical significance was tested using the χ² and Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Forty-six patients underwent primary elective AC, with 23 patients in each, the study and control groups. The groups were comparable regarding age (study group 60.33 ± 11.95 years and control group 59.86 ± 12.04, P = 0.90), menopausal status (study group 17 (73.9%) and control group 15 (68.2%), P = 0.67) and other characteristics. We found no difference in sample characteristics between the two groups. Connective tissue was found in only 13.6% (n = 3) of patients after hydrodissection and in 27.3% (n = 6) of patients without hydrodissection (P = 0.46). The hydrodissection group had significantly less bleeding than the control group (ΔHB 0.66 ± 0.66 vs 1.21 ± 0.84, P = 0.05). Conclusions: After hydrodissection, less bleeding was noted without compromise the surgical planes.