Takaisin Tulosta

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse

Evidence summaries
17.11.2023 • Latest change 17.11.2023
Editors

Level of evidence: B

Sacral colpopexy appears to have slightly lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, and postoperative stress urinary incontinence compared with vaginal procedures in women with apical vaginal prolapse.

Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by study limitations (unclear allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment in half of the studies).

Summary

A meta-analysis «Larouche M, Belzile E, Geoffrion R. Surgical Management of Symptomatic Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2021;137(6):1061-1073. »2 included 50 trials (62 articles with 22 792 patients). Median follow-up was 1-5 years. Vaginal suspensions showed higher risk of overall and apical anatomic recurrence compared with sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.74 and RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.33 to 5.50), whereas minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy showed less overall and posterior anatomic recurrence compared with open sacrocolpopexy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.75 and RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.80, respectively). Different vaginal approaches, and hysterectomy and suspension compared with hysteropexy had similar anatomic success. Subjective POP recurrence, reintervention for POP recurrence and complications were similar between most procedures.

A Cochrane review «Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse»1 «Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, ym. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;7(7):CD012376 »1 included 59 studies with a total of 6705 subjects. Vaginal procedures versus sacral colpopexy: After vaginal procedures, awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were more common (table «Vaginal procedure versus sacral colpopexy for the repair of apical prolapse»1). There was no conclusive evidence that vaginal procedures increased bladder injury or repeat surgery for SUI (table). Vaginal surgery with mesh versus without mesh: There was no clear difference in awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse, or repeat surgery for prolapse (table «Vaginal mesh compared with no vaginal mesh for women with apical vaginal prolapse»2). The confidence interval were very wide. There is probably little or no difference between the groups in rates of SUI (de novo) or dyspareunia; moderate-quality evidence).

Table 1. Vaginal procedure versus sacral colpopexy for the repair of apical prolapse
OutcomeRelative effect (95% CI) Assumed risk - Control - Sacral colpopexy Corresponding risk - Intervention - Vaginal surgery (95% CI)No of Participants (studies) Quality of evidence
Awareness of prolapse RR 2.31 (1.27 to 4.21) 76 / 1000 175 / 1000 (96 to 318) 346 (4) Moderate
Repeat surgery for prolapse RR 2.33 (1.34 to 4.04) 61 / 1000 142 / 1000 (82 to 246) 497 (6) Moderate
Recurrent prolapse on examination RR 1.87 (1.32 to 2.65) 176 / 1000 328 / 1000 (232 to 465)422 (5) Moderate
Intraoperative bladder injuryRR 0.46 (0.13 to 1.63) 20 / 1000 9 / 1000 (3 to 32) 625 (75) Moderate
Stress urinary incontinence RR 1.86 (1.17 to 2.94) 165 / 1000 308 / 1000 (193 to 486) 263 (3) Moderate
Table 2. Vaginal mesh compared with no vaginal mesh for women with apical vaginal prolapse
OutcomeRelative effect (95% CI)Assumed risk - Control - Vaginal colpopexy Corresponding risk - Intervention - Vaginal meshNo of Participants (studies) Quality of evidence
Awareness of prolapse (3 years) RR 1.08 (0.35 to 3.30)179 / 1000 193 / 1000 (63 to 589) 54 (1) Low
Repeat surgery for prolapse (1 to 3 years) RR 0.57 (0.30 to 1.06) 102 / 1000 58 / 1000 (31 to 108) 450 (5) Low
Recurrent prolapse on examination (1-3 years) RR 0.36 (0.09 to 1.40) 504 / 1000 181 / 1000 (45 to 705)269 (3) Low
Bladder injury 3.00 (0.91 to 9.89) 14 / 1000 41 / 1000 (12 to 135)445 (4) Very low
SUI (de novo 1 to 3 years) RR 1.37 (0.97 to 1.93) 175 / 1000 239 / 1000 (169 to 337)463 (6) Moderate

References

  1. Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, ym. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;7(7):CD012376 «PMID: 37493538»PubMed
  2. Larouche M, Belzile E, Geoffrion R. Surgical Management of Symptomatic Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2021;137(6):1061-1073. «PMID: 33957652»PubMed