Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy—a multicentre randomised controlled trial (LAVA trial)

Surgical outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Objective

In several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), sacrospinous hysteropexy and other forms of hysteropreservation have been compared. Nevertheless, there is no definitively best treatment. This study summarized RCT evidence for various uterine preservation surgical procedures.

Methods

From each database inception to August 2023, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for eligible RCTs. A comparison was made between sacrospinous hysteropexy and other hysteropreservation, including vaginal and abdominal surgery. For categorical and continuous variables, relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated using random-effects models.

Results

We reviewed a total 1,398 studies and ultimately included five RCTs that met all inclusion criteria. These five studies included a total of 1,372 uterine POP cases all of whom received transvaginal surgery and had a follow-up period for assessment of recurrence from 12 months to 5 years. There were no significant differences between sacrospinous hysteropexy and other hysteropreservation for the incidences of recurrence (RR,1.24; 95% CI, 0.58 to 2.63; p = 0.58) or hematoma (RR,0.70; 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.92; p = 0.62). Moreover, neither sacrospinous hysteropexy nor hysteropreservation had any significant effect on the risk of mesh exposure (RR,0.34; 95% CI, 0.03 to 4.31; p = 0.41), dyspareunia (RR,0.45; 95% CI, 0.13 to1.6; p = 0.22), urinary tract infection (RR,0.66; 95% CI, 0.38 to 1.15; p = 0.15), bothersome bulge symptoms (RR,0.03; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.08; p = 0.24), operative time (MD, -4.53; 95% CI, -12.08 to 3.01; p = 0.24), and blood loss (MD, -25.69; 95% CI, -62.28 to 10.91; p = 0.17). However, sacrospinous hysteropexy was associated with a lower probability of pain (RR,4.8; 95% CI, 0.79 to 29.26; p = 0.09) compared with other hysteropreservation.

Conclusion

There was no difference between sacrospinous hysteropexy and hysteropreservation in terms of recurrence, hematoma, mesh exposure, dyspareunia, urinary tract infection, bothersome bulge symptoms, operative time, pain, and blood loss.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO [CRD42023470025].

Nationwide assessment of practice variability in the utilization of hysteropexy at laparoscopic apical suspension for uterine prolapse

BACKGROUND

Although hysteropexy has been used to preserve the uterus during uterine prolapse surgery for a long time, there is a scarcity of data that describe the nationwide patterns of use of this surgical procedure.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine the national-level use and characteristics of hysteropexy at the time of laparoscopic apical suspension surgery for uterine prolapse in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample. The study population included 55,608 patients with a diagnosis of uterine prolapse who underwent laparoscopic apical suspension surgery from 2016 to 2019. Patients who had a hysterectomy were assigned to the hysterectomy group, and those who did not have a hysterectomy were assigned to the hysteropexy group. The main outcome was clinical characteristics associated with hysteropexy, assessed using a multivariable binary logistic regression model. A classification tree was further constructed to assess the use pattern of hysteropexy during laparoscopic apical suspension procedures. The secondary outcome was surgical morbidity, including urinary tract injury, intestinal injury, vascular injury, and hemorrhage.

RESULTS

A hysteropexy was performed in 6500 (11.7%) patients. In a multivariable analysis, characteristics associated with increased use of a hysteropexy included (1) patient factors, such as older age, Medicare coverage, private insurance, self-pay, and medical comorbidity; (2) pelvic floor dysfunction factor of complete uterine prolapse; and (3) hospital factors, including medium bed capacity center and location in the Southern United States (all P<.05). Conversely, (1) the patient factor of higher household income; (2) gynecologic factors such as uterine myoma, adenomyosis, and benign ovarian pathology; (3) pelvic floor dysfunction factor with stress urinary incontinence; and (4) hospital factors including Midwest and West United States regions and rural setting center were associated with decreased use of a hysteropexy (all P<.05). A classification tree identified a total of 14 use patterns for hysteropexies during laparoscopic apical suspension procedures. The strongest factor that dictated the use of a hysteropexy was the presence or absence of uterine myomas; the rate of hysteropexy use was decreased to 5.6% if myomas were present in comparison with 15% if there were no myomas (P<.001). Second layer factors were adenomyosis and hospital region. Patients who did not have uterine myomas or adenomyosis and who underwent surgery in the Southern United States had the highest rate of undergoing a hysteropexy (22.6%). Across the 14 use patterns, the percentage rate difference between the highest and lowest uptake patterns was 22.0%. Patients who underwent a hysteropexy were less likely to undergo anteroposterior colporrhaphy, posterior colporrhaphy, and sling procedures (all P<.05). Hysteropexy was associated with a decreased risk for measured surgical morbidity (3.0 vs 5.4 per 1000 procedures; adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.90).

CONCLUSION

The results of these current, real-world practice data suggest that hysteropexies are being performed at the time of ambulatory laparoscopic apical suspension surgery for uterine prolapse. There is substantial variability in the application of hysteropexy based on patient, gynecologic, pelvic floor dysfunction, and hospital factors. Developing clinical practice guidelines to address this emerging surgical practice may be of use.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomised controlled trial and prospective cohort (SALTO-2 trial)

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or vaginal sacrospinous fixation (VSF) is the most optimal surgical treatment in patients with POP-Q stage ≥2 vaginal vault prolapse (VVP).

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) and prospective cohort study alongside.

SETTING

Seven non-university teaching hospitals and two university hospitals in the Netherlands.

POPULATION

Patients with symptomatic post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse, requiring surgical treatment.

METHODS

Randomisation in a 1:1 ratio to LSC or VSF. Evaluation of prolapse was done using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q). All participants were asked to fill in various Dutch validated questionnaires 12 months postoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes included composite outcome of success and anatomical failure. Furthermore, we examined peri-operative data, complications and sexual function.

RESULTS

A total of 179 women, 64 women randomised and 115 women, participated in a prospective cohort. Disease-specific quality of life did not differ after 12 months between the LSC and VSF group in the RCT and the cohort (RCT: P = 0.887; cohort: P = 0.704). The composite outcomes of success for the apical compartment, in the RCT and cohort, were 89.3% and 90.3% in the LSC group and 86.2% and 87.8% in the VSF group, respectively (RCT: P = 0.810; cohort: P = 0.905). There were no differences in number of reinterventions and complications between both groups (reinterventions RCT: P = 0.934; cohort: P = 0.120; complications RCT: P = 0.395; cohort: P = 0.129).

CONCLUSIONS

LSC and VSF are both effective treatments for vaginal vault prolapse, after a follow-up period of 12 months.

Gynecologists' perspectives on surgical treatment for apical prolapse: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Vaginal sacrospinous fixation (VSF) without mesh and sacrocolpopexy (SCP) with mesh are the most frequently performed surgical procedures for apical prolapse in the Netherlands. There is no long-term evidence suggesting the optimal technique, however. The aim was to identify which factors play a role in the choice between these surgical treatment options.

METHODS

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews amongst Dutch gynecologists was carried out. An inductive content analysis was performed with Atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Ten interviews were analyzed. All gynecologists performed vaginal surgeries for apical prolapse, six gynecologists perform SCP themselves. Six gynecologists would perform VSF for a primary vaginal vault prolapse (VVP); three gynecologists preferred a SCP. All participants prefer a SCP for recurrent VVP. All participants have stated that multiple comorbidities could be a reason for choosing VSF, as this procedure is considered less invasive. Most participants choose a VSF in the case of older age (6 out of 10) or higher body mass index (7 out of 10). All treat primary uterine prolapse with vaginal, uterine-preserving surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent apical prolapse is the most important factor in advising patients which treatment they should undergo for VVP or uterine descent. Also, the patient's health status and the patient's own preference are important factors. Gynecologists who do not perform the SCP in their own clinic are more likely to perform a VSF and find more reasons not to advise a SCP. All participants prefer a vaginal surgery for a primary uterine prolapse.

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Apical vaginal prolapse is the descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available, but there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 14 March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 RCTs (6705 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodology, and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures compared to sacral colpopexy for vault prolapse (seven RCTs, n=613; six months to f four-year review) Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.21, 4 RCTs, n = 346, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 8% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 18% (10% to 32%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Surgery for recurrent prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.04; 6 RCTs, n = 497, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 6% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, 14% (8% to 25%) are likely to require it after vaginal procedures. Prolapse on examination is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.65; 5 RCTs, n = 422; I2 = 24%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 18% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, between 23% and 47% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Other outcomes: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of vaginal procedures on dyspareunia was uncertain (RR 3.44, 95% CI 0.61 to 19.53; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (six RCTS, 554 women, one to seven year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.10 to 9.98; 2 RCTs, n = 200, very low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.54; 5 RCTs, n = 403; I2 = 9%, low-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- there was little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 2 RCTs n = 230; I2 = 9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysteropexy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (two RCTs, n = 388, 1-four-year review) Awareness of prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.55 95% CI 0.21 to 1.44; 1 RCT n = 257, low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.44; 2 RCTs, n = 345; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 2 RCTs n =367; I2 =9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to vaginal hysteropexy (four RCTs, n = 620, 6 months to five-year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.0 95% CI 0.44 to 2.24; 2 RCTs, n = 365, I2 = 0% moderate-quality certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.60; 3 RCTs, n = 443; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.61; 2 RCTs n =361; I2 =74%, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes: Total vaginal length (TVL) was shorter after vaginal hysterectomy (mean difference (MD) 0.89cm 95% CI 0.49 to 1.28cm shorter; 3 RCTs, n=413, low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between the groups in terms of operating time, dyspareunia and stress urinary incontinence. Other analyses There were no differences identified for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (4 RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (3 RCTs), pectopexy versus other apical suspensions (5 RCTs), continuous versus interrupted sutures at sacral colpopexy (2 RCTs), absorbable versus permanent sutures at apical suspensions (5 RCTs) or different routes of sacral colpopexy. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is associated with shorter admission time than open approach (3 RCTs) and quicker operating time than robotic approach (3 RCTs). Transvaginal mesh does not confer any advantage over native tissue repair, however is associated with a 17.5% rate of mesh exposure (7 RCTs).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, and postoperative SUI than a variety of vaginal interventions. The limited evidence does not support the use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. There were no differences in primary outcomes for different routes of sacral colpopexy. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter operating time than robotic approach, and shorter admission than open approach. There were no significant differences between vaginal hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse nor between vaginal hysteropexy and abdominal hysteropexy/cervicopexy. There were no differences detected between absorbable and non absorbable sutures however, the certainty of evidence for mesh exposure and dyspareunia was low.

Modified Oxford technique of colpopexy for the treatment of uterine and vaginal vault prolapse: a retrospective pilot cohort study

Introduction

Pelvic organ prolapse is a common health issue that affects 30.8% of women. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and colpopectopexy are two of the most common procedures to restore the pelvic anatomy. Mesh application on the other hand carries an increased complications risk over the short and long terms. The aim of this study is to provide a basis for meshless sacrocolpopexy and colpopectopexy.

Methods

This study is a retrospective cohort pilot study that analyzed the data of patients with a pelvic organ prolapse according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and underwent the modified technique for sacrocolpopexy and colpopectopexy. Descriptive statistics were used to express the different variables.

Results

A total of 36 patients met the inclusion criteria and provided consent for the participation in this study. The majority of patients were postmenopausal. 22 out of 36 patients received a previous prolapse surgery. All patients presented with reducible vaginal lump. Dyspareunia and sexual dysfunction were the most commonly reported symptoms. The intraoperative complications rate was 0%. Only one patient had a postoperative persistent urinary retention that was managed medically.

Discussion

Sacrocolpopexy and colpopectopexy seems to be a safe alternative to the mesh-based pelvic surgeries with a very low rate of intraoperative complications and favorable follow up outcomes.

A systematic review of the surgical management of apical pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

This systematic review (PROSPERO:CRD42022275789) is aimed at comparing qualitatively the success, recurrence, and complication rates of sacrocolpopexy with concomitant hysterectomy, hysteropexy, sacrospinous fixation (SSF) with and without vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and uterosacral fixation (USF) with and without VH.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies published from 2011, on women with apical pelvic organ prolapse requiring surgical interventions. Risk of bias was assessed via the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tool. The primary outcomes are the success and recurrence rate of each technique, for ≥12 months' follow-up. Findings were summarised qualitatively.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included. Overall significant findings for a high success and low recurrence rate are summarised as: minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) is superior to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC); sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) is superior to USF + VH, which is superior to uterosacral hysteropexy and mesh hysteropexy (MHP). Significant findings related to complications include: MISC recorded a lower overall complication rate than ASC except in mesh exposure; USF + VH tends to perform better than SSHP and SSF, with SSHP performing better than MHP in faecal incontinence and overactive bladder rates.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to conclude that hysterectomy is superior to uterine-sparing approaches. MISC should be considered over ASC given similar efficacy and reduced complications. Superiority of MHP is unproven against native tissue hysteropexy. Further studies under standardised settings are required for direct comparisons between the surgical management methods.

Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor disorders are common, especially in pregnancy and after delivery, in the postmenopausal period, and old age, and they can significantly impact on the patient's quality of life.

METHODS

This narrative review is based on publications retrieved by a selective search of the literature, with special consideration to original articles and AWMF guidelines.

RESULTS

Pelvic floor physiotherapy (evidence level [EL] 1), the use of pessaries (EL2), and local estrogen therapy can help alleviate stress/urge urinary incontinence and other symptoms of urogenital prolapse. Physiotherapy can reduce urinary incontinence by 62% during pregnancy and by 29% 3-6 months post partum. Anticholinergic and β-sympathomimetic drugs are indicated for the treatment of an overactive bladder with or without urinary urge incontinence (EL1). For patients with stress urinary incontinence, selective serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors can be prescribed (EL1). The tension-free tape is the current standard of surgical treatment (EL1); in an observational follow-up study, 87.2% of patients were satisfied with the outcome 17 years after surgery. Fascial reconstruction techniques are indicated for the treatment of primary pelvic organ prolapse, and mesh-based surgical procedures for recurrences and severe prolapse (EL1).

CONCLUSION

Urogynecological symptoms should be specifically asked about by physicians of all relevant specialties; if present, they should be treated conservatively at first. Structured surgical techniques with and without mesh are available for the treatment of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Preventive measures against pelvic floor dysfunction should be offered during pregnancy and post partum.

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy as treatment for uterine descent: comparison of long-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a frequent occurring health issue, especially concerning elderly women. The objective of this study is to examine the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) for treatment of uterine prolapse.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent a LSH or SSHP. Validated questionnaires and an outpatient examination visit were used to investigate the effects of both surgical treatments. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of success for the apical compartment, defined as no recurrence of uterine prolapse (POP-Q measurement C ≤ 0), no subjective recurrence of POP, and/or not requiring therapy for recurrent prolapse. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative data, anatomical failure, prolapse beyond hymen, subjective outcomes, and disease-specific quality of life.

RESULTS

We included 105 patients, 53 in the LSH group and 52 in the SSHP group. The overall response rate of the questionnaires was 83% (n = 87) after a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years (54.2 months; 95% CI 44.8-64.2 months) in the LSH group and 2.5 years (30.1 months; 95% CI 29.3-31.5 months) in the SSHP group. There were no clinically relevant differences between the study groups in composite outcome of success (p = 0.073), anatomical failure of the apical compartment (p = 0.711), vaginal bulge symptoms for which patients consulted professionals (p = 0.126), and patient satisfaction (p = 0.741). The operative time was longer in the LSH group (117 min; interquartile range (IQR) 110-123) compared to the SSHP group (67 minutes; IQR 60-73) (p < 0.001). The duration of hospital stay was also longer in the LSH group (4 days) than in the SSHP group (3 days) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

LSH and SSHP seem to be equally effective after long-term follow-up in treating uterine prolapse in terms of objective and subjective recurrence.

Review of Vaginal Approaches to Apical Prolapse Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent literature and provide up-to-date knowledge on new and important findings in vaginal approaches to apical prolapse surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall prolapse recurrence rates following transvaginal apical prolapse repair range from 13.7 to 70.3% in medium- to long-term follow-up, while reoperation rates for prolapse recurrence are lower, ranging from 1 to 35%. Subjective prolapse symptoms remain improved despite increasing anatomic failure rates over time. The majority of studies demonstrated improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life in over 80% of patients 2-3 years after transvaginal repair, with similar outcomes with and without uterine preservation. Contemporary studies continue to demonstrate the safety of transvaginal native tissue repair with most adverse events occurring within the first 2 years. Transvaginal apical prolapse repair is safe and effective. It is associated with long-term improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life despite increasing rates of prolapse recurrence over time. Subjective outcomes do not correlate with anatomic outcomes.

Sacrospinous Fixation and Vaginal Uterosacral Suspension-Evaluation in Uterine Preservation Surgery

IMPORTANCE

Vaginal hysteropexy can be performed via the uterosacral or the sacrospinous ligament(s), but little data exist comparing these routes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare prolapse recurrence, retreatment, and symptoms along with the incidence of adverse events between patients undergoing vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy and sacrospinous hysteropexy.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent vaginal uterosacral or sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) between 2015 and 2019. Anatomic failure was the primary outcome, defined as prolapse beyond the hymen. Composite failure was defined as anatomic failure, bulge symptoms, and/or retreatment for prolapse.

RESULTS

At 4 geographically diverse referral centers, 147 patients underwent SSHP and 114 underwent uterosacral hysteropexy. The 1-year follow-up rate was 32% (83/261) with no difference between groups. There were 10 (3.8%) anatomic failures: 3 (2%) sacrospinous and 7 (6.1%) uterosacral (P = 0.109). There was no difference in bulge symptoms (9.9%), composite failure (13%), or median prolapse stage (2).The overall incidence of complications was low (7%; 95% confidence interval, 4.12%-10.43%) with a higher rate of ureteral kinking in the uterosacral group (7% vs 1.4%, P = 0.023). With a median follow-up of 17 months, 4.6% underwent subsequent hysterectomy and 6.5% had treatment for uterine/cervical pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

One year after hysteropexy, 1 in 3 patients were available for follow-up, and there were no differences in prolapse recurrence between patients who underwent uterosacral hysteropexy versus SSHP. The incidence of adverse events was low, and less than 5% of patients underwent subsequent hysterectomy for prolapse.

Summary: 2021 International Consultation on Incontinence Evidence-Based Surgical Pathway for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

(1) Background: There is wide variation in the reported prevalence rates for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). There is also wide variation in the rate at which surgical interventions for pelvic organ prolapse are performed, as well as the type of interventions undertaken. As part of the International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI), our committee was tasked to produce evidence-based pathways for the surgical management of POP, any associated stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and bowel dysfunction. (2) Methods: To enable us to generate such evidence, we undertook a thorough search for the POP surgery-related, English-language scientific literature published up to April 2021. (3) Results: The committee evaluated the literature and made recommendations based on the Oxford grading system. (4) Conclusions: This review serves to provide a summary of the 2021 ICI surgical management of an evidence-based prolapse pathway and outline the evidence used to inform this guidance.

Bilateral Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation with Vaginal Hysterectomy for Apical Uterovaginal Prolapse

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes between bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy (BSHP) and bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (BSLF/VH) in women with apical-predominant uterovaginal prolapse.

Methods

Clinical data from patients with symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) stage 2 or higher uterovaginal prolapse who underwent either BSHP (48 patients) or BSLF/VH (69 patients) between January 2014 and December 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The primary outcome was the subjective satisfaction rate evaluated by Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and the secondary outcomes included objective anatomical success rates, impact on disease-specific quality of life evaluated by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7, and surgical complications.

Results

After a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 25–58 months), all patients in both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in anatomical and functional outcomes (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative subjective and objective results, sexual satisfaction outcomes, or disease-specific quality of life between the BSHP and BSLF/VH groups, and similar incidence rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications were also recorded.

Conclusions

The uterus-sparing BSHP procedure yielded noninferior anatomical and functional outcomes compared to the BSLF/VH procedure and could be adopted as an alternative to conventional hysterectomy-based native-tissue repair modalities for symptomatic apical-predominant uterovaginal prolapse.

A novel bilateral anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse repair via the vaginal route: a cohort study

Background

Uterine-preserving techniques are becoming increasingly popular in the last decade. This investigation evaluates a novel hysteropexy technique using a mesh in sling-alike configuration [Splentis (Promedon, Argentina)] which is attached anteriorly to the cervix and suspended to the sacrospinous ligaments bilaterally via the vaginal route in women undergoing surgery for uterine prolapse.

Methods

This was a single-center cohort study, evaluating women who underwent transvaginal hysteropexy with Splentis for primary uterine descent. Data have been collected prospectively as part of the quality assurance system. Primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a combined endpoint including the absence of a vaginal bulge symptom and no retreatment of apical prolapse. A validated questionnaire to evaluate quality-of-life and prolapse symptoms was utilized. Descriptive analysis was applied. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare paired samples. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results

A total of 103 women with a median age of 68.0 [IQR 11.5] years with a median apical POP-Q stage of 3 were included. The median surgery time was 22 [IQR 12] minutes and no intraoperative complication occurred. After a median follow-up time of 17 months, treatment success was achieved in 91 (89.2%) patients and quality of life and patient report outcomes improved significantly (p < 0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in 3 (2.9%) patients. Of these, two patients required surgical revision, and one patient was treated conservatively. One patient required partial mesh removal due to dyspareunia.

Conclusion

Bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy with Splentis offers an efficacious and safe alternative for apical compartment repair, incorporating the advantages of pelvic floor reconstruction via the vaginal route.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-022-06486-4.

Long-term outcomes of primary cystocele repair by transvaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy: extended follow up of the PROSPERE multicentre randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic sacropexy (LS) and transvaginal mesh (TVM) at 4 years.

DESIGN

Extended follow up of a randomised trial.

SETTING

Eleven centres.

POPULATION

Women with cystocele stage ≥2 (pelvic organ prolapse quantification [POP-Q], aged 45-75 years without previous prolapse surgery.

METHODS

Synthetic non-absorbable mesh placed in the vesicovaginal space and sutured to the promontory (LS) or maintained by arms through pelvic ligaments and/or muscles (TVM).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Functional outcomes (pelvic floor distress inventory [PFDI-20] as primary outcome); anatomical assessment (POP-Q), composite outcome of success; re-interventions for complications.

RESULTS

A total of 220 out of 262 randomised patients have been followed at 4 years. PFDI-20 significantly improved in both groups and was better (but below the minimal clinically important difference) after LS (mean difference -7.2 points; 95% CI -14.0 to -0.05; P = 0.029). The improvement in quality of life and the success rate (LS 70%, 61-81% versus TVM 71%, 62-81%; hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.54; P = 0.75) were similar. POP-Q measurements did not differ, except for point C (LS -57 mm versus TVM -48 mm, P = 0.0093). The grade III or higher complication rate was lower after LS (2%, 0-4.7%) than after TVM (8.7%, 3.4-13.7%; hazard ratio 4.6, 95% CI 1.007-21.0, P = 0.049)).

CONCLUSIONS

Both techniques provided improvement and similar success rates. LS had a better benefit-harm balance with fewer re-interventions due to complications. TVM remains an option when LS is not feasible.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

At 4 years, Laparoscopic Sacropexy (LS) had a better benefit-harm balance with fewer re-interventions due to complications than Trans-Vaginal Mesh (TVM).

Comparison of the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation and sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis

Introduction and hypothesis

Sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) have been used for the restoration of apical support. Studies comparing sacrocolpopexy and SSLF have reported conflicting results. We aim to assess the current evidence regarding efficiency and the complications of sacrocolpopexy compared with SSLF.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review meta-analysis to assess the two surgical approaches.

Results

5Five randomized controlled trials, 8 retrospective studies, and 2 prospective studies including 4,120 cases were identified. Compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), SSLF was associated with a lower success rate (88.32% and 91.45%; OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.29–0.95; p = 0.03), higher recurrence (11.58% and 8.32%; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.04–3.46; p = 0.04), and dyspareunia rate (14.36% and 4.67%; OR 3.10; 95% CI 1.28–7.50; p = 0.01). Patients in this group may benefit from shorter operative time (weighted mean difference −25.08 min; 95% CI −42.29 to −7.88; p = 0.004), lower hemorrhage rate (0.85% and 2.58%; OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25–0.85; p = 0.009), wound infection rate (3.30% and 5.76%; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39–0.77; p = 0.0005), and fewer gastrointestinal complications (1.33% and 6.19%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15–0.76; p = 0.009).

Conclusion

Both sacrocolpopexy and SSLF offer an efficient alternative to the restoration of apical support. When anatomical durability and sexual function is a priority, ASC may be the preferred option. When considering factors of mesh erosion, operative time, gastrointestinal complications, hemorrhage, and wound infections, SSLF may be the better option.

Prospective analysis of transvaginal mesh hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of using transvaginal mesh to correct uterine prolapse by hysteropexy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective study of 40 subjects with bothersome uterine prolapse. Inclusion criteria were bothersome perception of a vaginal bulge on Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form (PFDI-20) and having a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) point C of -2 or worse. Exclusionary criteria included inability to consent, history of pelvic malignancies, or any prior prolapse repair. Eligible subjects were treated with transvaginal mesh hysteropexy between March 2016 and July 2018 for a primary outcome of composite success, which was defined by a POP-Q point C value of -2 or higher, PFDI-20 question 3 indicating no bothersome perception of prolapse, and no retreatment. Secondary outcomes included responses to condition-specific and quality-of-life questionnaires, satisfaction/regret, and complications.

RESULTS

Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy was performed in 40 subjects. The majority (68%) had advanced stage (III/IV) uterine prolapse. At a median follow-up of 12 months, there was an 84% composite success, and considering only anatomic criteria (POP-Q point C < -1), there was a 92% success. No subject required reintervention for recurrent or persistent uterine prolapse. There were no cases of mesh exposures. In terms of safety, one subject required a blood transfusion for symptomatic anemia (Clavien-Dindo grade II), and one subject reported de novo dyspareunia from a perineal band that was released in office at 6 months (grade IIIa), but otherwise there were no serious immediate or late complications. There were significant improvements in both condition-specific and quality-of-life assessments from baseline. Subject satisfaction and acceptance for the procedure were high.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center case series of 40 women with bothersome uterovaginal prolapse, transvaginal mesh hysteropexy appears safe and effective for correcting advanced stage uterine prolapse at the short term. A future multicenter controlled trial would be needed to determine efficacy against native tissue repair.