Comparison of two different methods for cervicovaginal reconstruction: a long-term follow-up.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

As a consequence of the evolution of surgery in reconstructive techniques, cervicovaginal reconstruction has become an option for patients diagnosed with congenital cervical and vaginal atresia. This study was aimed at comparing long-term clinical and anatomical results in patients who had cervicovaginal reconstruction with either a small intestinal submucosa (SIS) graft or a split-thickness skin (STS) graft.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 34 patients who underwent cervicovaginal reconstruction using SIS or STS grafts between January 2012 and August 2017. The patients' postoperative resumption of menstruation, vaginal length, body image satisfaction, and sexual satisfaction were assessed. Quantitative and categorical variables were compared using Student's t test and Chi-squared test respectively.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 81.29 ± 20.69 months. The SIS group had a shorter surgery time, an earlier return to work, and a higher cost (p < 0.05). All patients resumed menstruation, but 4 patients were diagnosed with cervical stricture. There was no significant difference in the length of the neovagina, and the satisfaction score of the sexual life of patients and their sexual partners was similar in both groups. Patients in the SIS group showed greater satisfaction with their bodies (p < 0.001). One patient in the SIS group got pregnant via assisted-reproduction techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervicovaginal reconstruction using SIS or STS grafts is an effective treatment for patients diagnosed with congenital cervical and vaginal atresia. The method of SIS graft is simpler, with less surgical injury and greater body satisfaction, but it is more expensive.