Surgical Treatment of Vaginal Apex Prolapse

Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with and without hysterectomy: a secondary analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to compare 30-day perioperative complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with and without a concomitant hysterectomy.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we identified women undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy between 2014 and 2018. Women were then stratified into two groups: sacrocolpopexy only and sacrocolpopexy + hysterectomy. The primary outcome was the occurrence of any 30-day postoperative complication. Group comparisons were performed using Student's t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Chi-squared test. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent factors associated with the occurrence of any complication.

RESULTS

A total of 8,553 women underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, 5,123 (59.9%) of whom had a concomitant hysterectomy. Median operative time was longer in women who had sacrocolpopexy + hysterectomy compared with sacrocolpopexy alone (185 [129-241] versus 172 [130-224] min, p < 0.001). The rate of any 30-day postoperative complication did not differ between groups (sacrocolpopexy + hysterectomy 5.5% versus sacrocolpopexy alone 5.8%, p = 0.34). Likewise, organ space, deep, and superficial surgical site infections did not differ between groups. There was also no difference in reoperation or readmission rates between groups. On multivariate logistic regression, sacrocolpopexy + hysterectomy were not associated with increased odds of 30-day postoperative complications relative to women who underwent sacrocolpopexy alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates during the first 30 days after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy are low and concomitant hysterectomy is not associated with increased risks of 30-day complications after surgery.

Surgical decision making for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based approach

Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP), and a variety of procedures can be performed to correct POP. When deciding on the proper surgical procedure, the surgeon must take into consideration the individual patient's risk for surgical complication and prolapse recurrence and her preference. This review will discuss the key issues faced in the surgical decision-making process for POP and recommendations based on the current scientific evidence.

A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Restorelle Y Mesh and Flat Mesh for Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to compare case and mesh placement times between Restorelle Y mesh and flat mesh. The secondary objective was to compare subjective and objective outcomes between the 2 mesh configurations.

METHODS

This is a randomized trial of women undergoing laparoscopic (LSC) or robotic (RSC) sacrocolpopexy for posthysterectomy vaginal prolapse. Subjects were predetermined to undergo either an LSC or RSC and randomized to Y mesh or flat mesh. Case and mesh placement times were defined as incision time to time of closure and time from mesh introduced into the abdomen to placement of the last sacral stitch, respectively. All subjects underwent Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System examination and completed the 20-item Pelvic Floor Disability Index preoperatively, at 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were enrolled, and 59 patients were implanted with mesh: 30 with Y mesh (17 LSC, 13 RSC) and 29 with flat mesh (18 LSC, 11 RSC). There were no differences in patient characteristics between mesh groups. Mean case and mesh placement times for all subjects were 204.4 ± 48 and 46.1 ± 13.5 minutes, respectively, with no differences between the groups. At 6 months, 20-item Pelvic Floor Disability Index scores improved significantly for all subjects with no differences by mesh type. Three subjects (5.5%) reported vaginal bulge symptoms, and no subjects were retreated for prolapse or were found to have recurrent prolapse on examination. There were also no mesh erosions.

CONCLUSIONS

Case and mesh placement times do not differ in patients undergoing LSC or RSC with either Restorelle Y mesh or flat mesh. At 6 months, subjective and objective successes were 94% and 100%, respectively.

Mesh colposacropexy in the management of anterior vaginal compartment prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is a frequent female pathology, often causing a negative impact on the patient’s quality of life. The purpose of this paper is to present the results that we have achieved in 32 patients with anterior vaginal compartment prolapse, managed using the transvaginal mesh approach.

Over a period of twelve months, we have performed 32 transvaginal reconstructive procedures using a four arms polypropylene mesh. The superior arms of the mesh have been passed through the obturator foramen while the inferior arms have been passed through the sacrospinous ligament.

The surgery has lead to a significant improvement in the quality of life in this group of patients, this being assessed using self-administered questionnaires that evaluated the quality of life, the sexual function, and urinary continence. Anatomical success was achieved in 96.87% of the cases. In terms of postoperative complications, we mention one case of vaginal erosion, one case of de novo dyspareunia and three cases of pelvic discomfort. So far we have not encountered any mesh exposure cases nor prolapse recurrence.

Considering the results that we have achieved in our study, we can conclude that the transvaginal polypropylene mesh approach can prove itself to be a viable solution for the management of genital prolapse, especially if we consider the high postoperative rates of anatomical success and low rates of postoperative complications, as well as improving the patient’s quality of life. In spite of these encouraging results, the fact that in recent years FDA has emitted several warnings in terms of postoperative complications following such procedures, as well as the fact that our study was conducted on a small group of patients, limits the strength of our research, its only purpose being to present our experience for this surgical approach over a limited period of time.

Surgical Outcomes After Apical Repair for Vault Compared With Uterovaginal Prolapse

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively compare surgical success and complications between vaginal vault prolapse compared with uterovaginal prolapse in women who underwent apical prolapse repair for stage II-IV prolapse.

METHODS

Women in one of three Pelvic Floor Disorders Network prolapse surgical trials were included. Absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, no prolapse beyond the hymen, and no subsequent prolapse treatment defined success and was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included comparison of quality-of-life measures, anatomic changes, and adverse events. Pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) and quality-of-life measures were administered at baseline and 1-2 years postoperatively. Comparisons were controlled for study site, age, body mass index, baseline POP-Q, apical and anterior or posterior repair performed, and prior prolapse repair. Outcomes measured at multiple time points were analyzed using longitudinal models to assess whether differences existed across study follow-up.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty-one women underwent vault prolapse, and 601 underwent uterovaginal prolapse apical repair. The vault prolapse group was older, more likely to be white, and to have prior urinary incontinence or prolapse repair, stage IV prolapse, and more prolapse bother on a validated scale (all P≤.034). The vault prolapse group was more likely to undergo sacrocolpopexy (228/421 [54%] vs 93/601 [15%]); the uterovaginal prolapse group was more likely to undergo vaginal repair (508/601 [85%] vs 193/421 [46%] P<.001). There were no differences in success (odds ratio [OR] 0.76 for vault prolapse vs uterovaginal prolapse, 95% CI 0.51-1.15, P=.20), changes in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores (-79.4 vs -79.8, P=.89), postoperative POP-Q point C measurements (-7.0 vs -7.1 cm, P=.41), or serious adverse events (86/421 [20%] vs 90/601 [15%], P=.86) between groups. Among women who underwent a vaginal approach for repair of vault prolapse (n=193) or uterovaginal prolapse (n=508), there were no differences in success rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43-1.04, P=.09) at 1-2 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Surgical success of stage II-IV vault prolapse and uterovaginal prolapse apical repair was similar whether performed vaginally or abdominally at 1-2 years postoperatively.

Apical Suspension Utilization at the Time of Vaginal Hysterectomy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Varies With Surgeon Specialty

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether utilization of apical suspension procedures at the time of vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse varies with surgeon specialty.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2014 to 2016. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification with a diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with any combination of pelvic reconstructive procedures. Propensity score matching using available preoperative clinical data was used to ameliorate selection bias by specialty at a ratio of 1 female pelvic reconstructive surgeon (FPMRS) surgeon to 2 obstetrician-gynecologists (OBG). Descriptive statistics were reported as means with standard deviations. Pairwise analysis using Student t test and Fisher exact test was performed where appropriate.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were 901 cases performed by FPMRS and 1802 performed by OBG. The overall utilization rate of apical suspension in the matched cohort was 81.7% for FPMRS and 19.8% for OBG (P < 0.001). Obstetrician-gynecologists were more likely to perform vaginal hysterectomy without apical suspension compared with FPMRS (44.3% vs 5.8%; P < 0.001) and were also more likely to perform nonapical vaginal repair without also performing an apical suspension, (17.7% vs 9.3%, P < 0.001), compared to urogynecologists. On multivariable logistic regression, having surgery performed by FPMRS was the only significant variable associated with an increased likelihood of undergoing apical suspension (adjusted odds ratio, 5.34; 95% confidence interval, 4.48-6.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The FPMRS physicians are more likely to perform apical suspension with vaginal hysterectomy for prolapse repair compared with OBG.

Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate

BACKGROUND

Apical vaginal support is considered the keystone of pelvic organ support. Level I evidence supports reestablishment of apical support at time of hysterectomy, regardless of whether the hysterectomy is performed for prolapse. National rates of apical support procedure performance at time of inpatient hysterectomy have not been well described.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to estimate trends and factors associated with use of apical support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy for benign indications in a large national database.

STUDY DESIGN

The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample was used to identify hysterectomies performed from 2004 through 2013 for benign indications. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to select both procedures and diagnoses. The primary outcome was performance of an apical support procedure at time of hysterectomy. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There were 3,509,230 inpatient hysterectomies performed for benign disease from 2004 through 2013. In both nonprolapse and prolapse groups, there was a significant decrease in total number of annual hysterectomies performed over the study period (P < .0001). There were 2,790,652 (79.5%) hysterectomies performed without a diagnosis of prolapse, and an apical support procedure was performed in only 85,879 (3.1%). There was a significant decrease in the proportion of hysterectomies with concurrent apical support procedure (high of 4.0% in 2004 to 2.5% in 2013, P < .0001). In the multivariable logistic regression model, increasing age, hospital type (urban teaching), hospital bed size (large and medium), and hysterectomy type (vaginal and laparoscopically assisted vaginal) were associated with performance of an apical support procedure. During the study period, 718,578 (20.5%) inpatient hysterectomies were performed for prolapse diagnoses and 266,743 (37.1%) included an apical support procedure. There was a significant increase in the proportion of hysterectomies with concurrent apical support procedure (low of 31.3% in 2005 to 49.3% in 2013, P < .0001). In the multivariable logistic regression model, increasing age, hospital type (urban teaching), hospital bed size (medium and large), and hysterectomy type (total laparoscopic and laparoscopic supracervical) were associated with performance of an apical support procedure.

CONCLUSION

This national database study demonstrates that apical support procedures are not routinely performed at time of inpatient hysterectomy regardless of presence of prolapse diagnosis. Educational efforts are needed to increase awareness of the importance of reestablishing apical vaginal support at time of hysterectomy regardless of indication.

Ligament shortening compared to vaginal colpopexy at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The performance of a colpopexy at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse is a potential indicator of surgical quality. However, vaginal colpopexy has not been directly compared with the classic technique of ligament shortening and reattachment. We sought to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in prolapse recurrence between the techniques.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of 330 vaginal hysterectomies performed for prolapse, comparing symptomatic and/or anatomic recurrence rates between patients having a vaginal colpopexy (uterosacral ligament suspension or sacrospinous ligament suspension) and those having ligament shortening and reattachment. Clinically relevant variables significantly associated with recurrence in a univariate analysis were used to create a multivariable logistic regression model to predict recurrence.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of 20 months, there was no significant difference between symptomatic and/or anatomic recurrence rates: 19.4 % of patients (41 of 211) having colpopexy vs. 11.8 % of patients (14 of 119) having ligament shortening (p = 0.07). Baseline prolapse stage was higher in patients having colpopexy (median 3, IQR 2 - 5) than in those having ligament shortening (median 2, IQR 1 - 3; p ≤ 0.0001). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the procedure performed was not associated with recurrence (OR 1.57, 95 % CI 0.79 - 3.12). A baseline prolapse of 4 cm or greater was associated with recurrence (OR 2.63, 95 % CI 1.32 - 5.22), as was the time since hysterectomy (OR 1.02 per month, 95 % CI 1.01 - 1.04).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with vaginal colpopexy, selective use of the ligament shortening technique at the time of vaginal hysterectomy was associated with similar rates of prolapse recurrence. Preoperative prolapse size was the factor most strongly associated with recurrence.

Robot-Assisted Sacrocolporectopexy for Multicompartment Prolapse of the Pelvic Floor: A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating Functional and Sexual Outcome

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor disorders are a major public health issue. For female genital prolapse, sacrocolpopexy is the gold standard. Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy is a relatively new and promising technique correcting rectal prolapse. There is no literature combining the 2 robotically assisted techniques.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate the safety, quality of life, and functional and sexual outcomes of robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for multicompartment prolapse of the pelvic floor.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, observational cohort study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a tertiary care setting.

PATIENTS

All sexually active patients undergoing robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy at our institution between 2012 and 2014 were included.

INTERVENTION

Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy was the study intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preoperative and postoperative (12 months) questionnaires using the Urinary Distress Inventory, Pescatori Incontinence Scale, Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire were completed. In addition Wexner and Vaizey incontinence scores and the Wexner constipation score were recorded postoperatively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients underwent robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy (median follow-up, 12.5 months). The simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification improved significantly (p < 0.0005) for all 4 of the anatomic landmarks. Both median fecal (preoperative and postoperative Pescatori 4 vs 3, p = 0.002) and urinary incontinence scores (Urinary Distress Inventory, 27.8 vs 22.2; p < 0.0005) improved significantly at 12 months. Postoperatively median Wexner (3) and Vaizey incontinence (6) and Wexner Constipation (7) scores were noted. A positive effect on sexual function (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire score 31.8 vs 35.9; p = 0.002) and quality of life for each compartment (p < 0.0005) was observed. One patient (2%) developed mesh erosion. No multicompartment recurrences were detected.

LIMITATIONS

This was a observational study with a limited follow-up, no control group, and no preoperatively validated constipation score.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy is a safe and effective technique for multicompartment prolapse in terms of functional outcome, quality of life, and sexual function.

Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is a prevalent condition, with up to 12 % of women requiring surgery in their lifetime. This manuscript reviews the treatment options for apical prolapse, specifically. Both conservative and surgical management options are acceptable and should be based on patient preferences. Pessaries are the most commonly used conservative management options. Guided pelvic floor muscle training is more beneficial than self-taught Kegel exercises, though may not be effective for high stage or apical prolapse. Surgical treatment options include abdominal and vaginal approaches, the latter of which can be performed open, laparoscopically, and robotically. A systematic review has demonstrated that sacrocolpopexy has better long-term success for treatment of apical prolapse than vaginal techniques, but vaginal surgery can be considered an acceptable alternative. Recent data has demonstrated equal efficacy between uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension at 1 year. To date, two randomized controlled trials have demonstrated equal efficacy between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Though abdominal approaches may have increased long-term durability, when counseling their patients, surgeons should consider longer operating times and increased pain and cost with these procedures compared to vaginal surgery.

KEY POINTS

• Pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with a physical therapist is the best approach to conservative management of apical prolapse [10]. • Pessaries should be managed with regular follow-up care to minimize complications [14•]. • Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy appears as effective as the gold standard abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) [42•]. • Robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and laparoscopic assisted sacrocolpopexy (LASC) are equally effective and should be utilized by pelvic floor surgeons based on their skill level and expertise in laparoscopy [44, 45•]. • Uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS) are considered equally effective procedures and can be combined with a vaginal hysterectomy. • Obliterative procedures are effective but are considered definitive surgery [24••]. • The use of transvaginal mesh has been shown in some studies to be superior to native tissue repairs with regard to anatomic outcomes, but complication rates are higher. Transvaginal mesh should be reserved for surgeons with adequate training so that complications are minimized.

Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

Our first objective was to compare peri- and postoperative adverse events between robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) and conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) in a cohort of women who underwent these procedures at a tertiary care center. Our second objective was to explore whether hysterectomy and rectopexy at the time of sacrocolpopexy were associated with these adverse events.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent either RSC or LSC with or without concomitant hysterectomy and/or rectopexy from 2006-2012. Once patients were identified as either having undergone RSC or LSC, the electronic medical record was queried for demographic, peri-, and postoperative data.

RESULTS

Four hundred six women met study inclusion criteria. Mean age and body mass index of all the women were 58 ± 10 years and 27.9 ± 4.9 kg/m(2). The women who underwent RSC were older (60 ± 9 vs 57 ± 10 years, respectively; P = .009) and more likely to be postmenopausal (90.9% vs 79.1%, respectively; P = .05). RSC cases were associated with a higher intraoperative bladder injury rate (3.3% vs 0.4%, respectively; P = .04), a higher rate of estimated blood loss of ≥500 mL (2.5% vs 0, respectively; P = .01), and reoperation rate for pelvic organ prolapse (4.9% vs 1.1%, respectively; P = .02) compared with LSC. Concomitant rectopexy was associated with a higher risk of transfusion (2.8% vs 0.3%, respectively; P = .04), pelvic/abdominal abscess formation (11.1% vs 0.8%, respectively; P < .001), and osteomyelitis (5.6% vs 0, respectively; P < .001). The mesh erosion rate for all the women was 2.7% and was not statistically different between LSC and RSC and for patients who underwent concomitant hysterectomy and those who did not.

CONCLUSION

Peri- and postoperative outcomes after RSC and LSC are favorable, with few adverse outcomes. RSC is associated with a higher rate of bladder injury, estimated blood loss ≥500 mL, and reoperation for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse; otherwise, the rate of adverse events is similar between the 2 modalities. Concomitant rectopexy is associated with a higher rate of postoperative abscess and osteomyelitis complications.

Functional outcome after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with or without concomitant hysterectomy

PURPOSE

When counseling patients about surgical alternatives for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair, numerous things have to be considered. Uterine preservation vs. hysterectomy is one relevant issue. Hysterectomy has been traditionally performed for POP, but its benefit regarding outcome has never been proven. Furthermore, a growing number of women ask for uterine preservation.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 384 patients who had undergone surgery for POP between 2000 and 2012 at Freiburg University Medical Center were included. Using a standardized questionnaire, further surgeries, urinary incontinence, recurrent POP, pessary use, and satisfaction with the surgical outcome were evaluated. The functional results after uterine preservation vs. concomitant hysterectomy were compared using t test.

RESULTS

196 (51.04%) women were available for follow-up and agreed to participate (n = 122 with hysterectomy, n = 72 with uterine-preserving surgery, respectively). After a mean follow-up time of 67 months, vaginal bulge symptoms and urinary incontinence did not differ between treatment groups. We observed higher success rates and satisfaction scores in the uterine-preserving group. Regarding satisfaction with surgery and whether the patients thought it had been successful, we observed a trend toward better results in the uterine-preserving group (mean satisfaction score: 8.45 ± 2.15 vs. 7.76 ± 2.91, range 0-10, p = 0.061; success: 91.4 vs. 81.7 %, p = 0.087).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference with regard to functional outcome between patients with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Satisfaction with the operation was slightly higher after uterus preserving surgery. Therefore, uterine-preserving surgery is a valuable option unless there are contraindications.

Sacral osteomyelitis after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy performed after a recent dental extraction: a case report

BACKGROUND

Sacral osteomyelitis and subsequent discitis is a rare complication after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy to repair apical vaginal prolapse.

CASE

We present a patient who developed Bacteroides fragilis sacral osteomyelitis and discitis after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with synthetic monofilament mesh and sacral titanium coil fixation. The patient had undergone dental extraction of 3 infected teeth approximately 2 weeks before sacrocolpopexy for stage IV apical vaginal prolapse. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirmed sacral osteomyelitis and discitis along with Bacteroides fragilis bacteremia approximately a week and a half after the original surgery. The patient was followed up with serial MRIs of the spine which revealed degeneration at the sacral promontory. The patient underwent successful removal of the entire mesh and sacral titanium coils with resolution of her symptoms. Follow-up MRI of the spine revealed resolution of her sacral osteomyelitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacral osteomyelitis is a rare complication after sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse repair. There should be a high index of suspicion for patients presenting with disproportionate low back pain and vague symptoms after surgery. Recent oral surgery may increase the risk of bacteremia and subsequent infectious morbidity after sacrocolpopexy with the use of synthetic mesh for prolapse repair.

Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim was to determine factors associated with performing concurrent apical support procedures in hysterectomies carried out for uterovaginal prolapse.

METHODS

Hysterectomies performed for uterovaginal prolapse from 2000 to 2010 were identified by ICD-9 codes. Uterovaginal prolapse was a proxy for apical descent. Primary outcome was the rate of concurrent apical procedures. Secondary outcomes included concurrent surgeries, complications, and surgeon training. Chi-squared tests compared categorical variables. Logistic regression determined factors associated with concurrent apical support.

RESULTS

A total of 2,465 hysterectomies were performed for uterovaginal prolapse. In only 1,358 cases (55.1%) were concurrent apical support procedures carried out. Cases without apical procedures were more likely to undergo cystocele repair (23.8% vs 9.4%, p < 0.001), but less likely to have rectocele (3.4% vs 12.2%, p < 0.001) or combined cystocele/rectocele repair (16.4% vs 25.6%, p < 0.001). Of those without apical procedures, 95.7% were performed by generalists. Urogynecologists and minimally invasive gynecologists were more likely to perform apical procedures (97.1% and 88.8% vs 23.6%, p < 0.001). Older patients (>75 years) were more likely to undergo apical procedures (OR 5.096, 95% CI 3.127-8.304). Surgeons practicing for 10-14 years and >20 years were less likely to perform apical procedures than those practicing <5 years (p < 0.001 vs. p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

At a tertiary hospital, a significant proportion of hysterectomies are carried out for uterovaginal prolapse without concurrent apical support procedures, with the majority performed by generalists. Urogynecologists and minimally invasive gynecologists are more likely to perform an apical suspension at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse than generalists. This supports the need for continued education about apical support to appropriately manage uterovaginal prolapse.

Role of apical support defect: correction in women undergoing vaginal prolapse surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim was to review most recent literature and provide updates in clinical management and surgical treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients who decline surgical intervention, formal referral to pelvic floor muscle training is beneficial over self-directed Kegel exercises. Systematic reviews revealed that sacrocolpopexy has better long-term outcomes than vaginal approaches. Uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension have equal efficacy at 1 year. These procedures should be considered as acceptable alternatives to sacrocolpopexy. Two randomized controlled trials have demonstrated equal efficacy between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

SUMMARY

Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy should be considered the gold standard for apical prolapse, but these techniques are associated with longer operating times and higher complication rates and longer convalescence than nonmesh vaginal surgery. Surgeons must individualize surgical technique for each patient and should consider a vaginal approach in patients who do not desire laparotomy and are not candidates for minimally invasive surgery.

Clinical challenges in the management of vaginal prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse is highly prevalent, and negatively affects a woman’s quality of life. Women with bothersome prolapse may be offered pessary management or may choose to undergo corrective surgery. In choosing the most appropriate surgical procedure, there are many factors to consider. These may include the location(s) of anatomic defects, the severity of prolapse symptoms, the activity level of the woman, and concerns regarding the durability of the repair. In many instances, women and their surgeons are challenged to weigh the risks and benefits of native tissue versus mesh-augmented repairs. Though mesh-augmented repairs may offer better durability, they are also associated with unique complications, such as mesh erosion. Furthermore, newer surgical techniques of mesh placement via abdominal or vaginal routes may result in different outcomes compared to traditional techniques. Biologic grafts may also be considered to improve durability of a surgical repair, while avoiding potential complications of synthetic mesh. In this article, we review many of the clinical challenges that gynecologic surgeons face in the surgical management of vaginal prolapse. Furthermore, we review data that can help guide decision making when treating women with pelvic organ prolapse.