Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment (Pe-QA).

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Perineorrhaphy (Pe) has not been subject to a comprehensive perioperative quantitative assessment (QA). We wish to nominate such an assessment (Pe-QA) for any Pe, through testing the QA on the excision of the perineal gap (PG) at the time of posterior repair (PR).

METHODS

At 50 consecutive PRs, the following measurements were taken pre- and postoperatively: (i) perineorrhaphy width (PW) equals PG [1]; (ii) perineorrhaphy depth (PD); (iii) perineal length (PL); (iv) midperineal thickness (MPT); (v) genital hiatus (GH) and (vi) total posterior vaginal length (TPVL). The total vaginal length was also measured. Surgical details deemed appropriate to each repair were recorded.

RESULTS

The overall means and ranges (cm) were: (i) PW 2.9 (1.5-5.5); (ii) PD 1.6 (0.8-2.0); (iii) PL 2.9 (1.5-4.5); (iv) MPT 0.7 (0.4-1.1); (v) GH 3.9 (2.3-6.5); (vi) TPVL 9.2 (6.0-12.5). Excision of PG (100 % cases reducing PW and PD to zero) resulted in a mean 23.6 % increase in total vaginal length over that if the repair was commenced at the hymen, despite a 3.3 % decrease in the TPVL perioperatively. There was a mean 30.8 % reduction in the GH, a mean 27.6 % increase in the PL and a mean 57.1 % increase in the MPT.

CONCLUSIONS

Pe and the anatomical results of such surgery can be subject to quantitative assessment allowing comparison studies between different forms of Pe and possibly other types of perineal surgeries.