Explore the vast range of titles available.

The use of transvaginal mesh and biological graft material in prolapse surgery is controversial and has led to a number of enquiries into their safety and efficacy. Existing trials of these augmentations are individually too small to be conclusive. We aimed to compare the outcomes of prolapse repair involving either synthetic mesh inlays or biological grafts against standard repair in women. We did two pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trials for our study (PROSPECT [PROlapse Surgery: Pragmatic Evaluation and randomised Controlled Trials]) in 35 centres (a mix of secondary and tertiary referral hospitals) in the UK. We recruited women undergoing primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery by 65 gynaecological surgeons in these centres. We randomly assigned participants by a remote web-based randomisation system to one of the two trials: comparing standard (native tissue) repair alone with standard repair augmented with either synthetic mesh (the mesh trial) or biological graft (the graft trial). We assigned women (1:1:1 or 1:1) within three strata: assigned to one of the three treatment options, comparison of standard repair with mesh, and comparison of standard repair with graft. Participants, ward staff, and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation where possible; masking was obviously not possible for the surgeon. Follow-up was for 2 years after the surgery; the primary outcomes, measured at 1 year and 2 years, were participant-reported prolapse symptoms (i.e. the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score [POP-SS]) and condition-specific (ie, prolapse-related) quality-of-life scores, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN60695184. Between Jan 8, 2010, and Aug 30, 2013, we randomly allocated 1352 women to treatment, of whom 1348 were included in the analysis. 865 women were included in the mesh trial (430 to standard repair alone, 435 to mesh augmentation) and 735 were included in the graft trial (367 to standard repair alone, 368 to graft augmentation). Because the analyses were carried out separately for each trial (mesh trial and graft trial) some women in the standard repair arm assigned to all treatment options were included in the standard repair group of both trials. 23 of these women did not receive any surgery (15 in the mesh trial, 13 in the graft trial; five were included in both trials) and were included in the baseline analyses only. Mean POP-SS at 1 year did not differ substantially between comparisons (standard 5·4 [SD 5·5] vs mesh 5·5 [5·1], mean difference 0·00, 95% CI −0·70 to 0·71; p=0·99; standard 5·5 [SD 5·6] vs graft 5·6 [5·6]; mean difference −0·15, −0·93 to 0·63; p=0·71). Mean prolapse-related quality-of-life scores also did not differ between groups at 1 year (standard 2·0 [SD 2·7] vs mesh 2·2 [2·7], mean difference 0·13, 95% CI −0·25 to 0·51; p=0·50; standard 2·2 [SD 2·8] vs graft 2·4 [2·9]; mean difference 0·13, −0·30 to 0·56; p=0·54). Mean POP-SS at 2 years were: standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus mesh 5·3 (5·1), mean difference 0·32, 95% CI −0·39 to 1·03; p=0·37; standard 4·9 (SD 5·1) versus graft 5·5 (5·7); mean difference 0·32, −0·48 to 1·12; p=0·43. Prolapse-related quality-of-life scores at 2 years were: standard 1·9 (SD 2·5) versus mesh 2·2 (2·6), mean difference 0·15, 95% CI −0·23 to 0·54; p=0·44; standard 2·0 (2·5) versus graft 2·2 (2·8); mean difference 0·10, −0·33 to 0·52; p=0·66. Serious adverse events such as infection, urinary retention, or dyspareunia or other pain, excluding mesh complications, occurred with similar frequency in the groups over 1 year (mesh trial: 31/430 [7%] with standard repair vs 34/435 [8%] with mesh, risk ratio [RR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·68 to 1·72; p=0·73; graft trial: 23/367 [6%] with standard repair vs 36/368 [10%] with graft, RR 1·57, 0·95 to 2·59; p=0·08). The cumulative number of women with a mesh complication over 2 years in women actually exposed to synthetic mesh was 51 (12%) of 434. Augmentation of a vaginal repair with mesh or graft material did not improve women's outcomes in terms of effectiveness, quality of life, adverse effects, or any other outcome in the short term, but more than one in ten women had a mesh complication. Therefore, follow-up is vital to identify any longer-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects of mesh or graft reinforcement in vaginal prolapse surgery. UK National Institute of Health Research.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and success of uterus preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse five years after surgery.DesignObservational follow-up of SAVE U (sacrospinous fixation versus vaginal hysterectomy in treatment of uterine prolapse ≥2) randomised controlled trial.SettingFour non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands.Participants204 of 208 healthy women in the initial trial (2009-12) with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery who had been randomised to sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. The women were followed annually for five years after surgery. This extended trial reports the results at five years.Main outcome measuresPrespecified primary outcome evaluated at five year follow-up was recurrent prolapse of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) stage 2 or higher evaluated by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical failure (recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher in apical, anterior, or posterior compartment), composite outcome of success (defined as no prolapse beyond the hymen, no bothersome bulge symptoms, and no repeat surgery or pessary use for recurrent prolapse), functional outcome, quality of life, repeat surgery, and sexual functioning.ResultsAt five years, surgical failure of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery occurred in one woman (1%) after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with eight women (7.8%) after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (difference−6.7%, 95% confidence interval −12.8% to−0.7%). A statistically significant difference was found in composite outcome of success between sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy (89/102 (87%) v 77/102 (76%). The other secondary outcomes did not differ. Time-to-event analysis at five years showed no differences between the interventions.ConclusionsAt five year follow-up significantly less anatomical recurrences of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery were found after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. After hysteropexy a higher proportion of women had a composite outcome of success. Time-to-event analysis showed no differences in outcomes between the procedures.Trial registrationtrialregister.nl NTR1866.

Objective To investigate whether uterus preserving vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy is non-inferior to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse.Design Multicentre randomised controlled non-blinded non-inferiority trial.Setting 4 non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands.Participants 208 healthy women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery.Interventions Treatment with sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an increase in surgical failure rate of 7%.Main outcome measures Primary outcome was recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) evaluated by the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse at 12 months’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical recurrences, including recurrent anterior compartment (bladder) and/or posterior compartment (bowel) prolapse, functional outcome, complications, hospital stay, postoperative recovery, and sexual functioning.Results Sacrospinous hysteropexy was non-inferior for anatomical recurrence of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery (n=0, 0%) compared with vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments (n=4, 4.0%, difference −3.9%, 95% confidence interval for difference −8.6% to 0.7%). At 12 months, overall anatomical recurrences, functional outcome, quality of life, complications, hospital stay, measures on postoperative recovery, and sexual functioning did not differ between the two groups. Five serious adverse events were reported during hospital stay. None was considered to be related to the type of surgery.Conclusions Uterus preservation by sacrospinous hysteropexy was non-inferior to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments for surgical failure of the apical compartment at 12 months’ follow-up.Trial registration trialregister.nl NTR1866.

Women undergoing surgery for vaginal prolapse are at risk for urinary incontinence. In this randomized trial, women who received a midurethral sling had lower rates of incontinence at 3 and 12 months but higher rates of adverse events than those who received sham incisions. One in five women will undergo surgery for pelvic-organ prolapse in her lifetime, 1 and urinary incontinence commonly occurs with pelvic-organ prolapse. In previously continent women with pelvic-organ prolapse, urinary incontinence develops in approximately a quarter of them after prolapse repair; this phenomenon is referred to as occult, latent, de novo, iatrogenic, or potential stress urinary incontinence. 2 In 2006, the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial 2 showed that adding a bladder-neck suspension at the time of abdominal prolapse surgery in women without preoperative stress incontinence significantly reduced the risk of postoperative stress urinary incontinence (23.8%, vs. 44.1% in the control . . .

This study assesses the efficacy of bilateral mesh sacrospinous ligament suspension (MSSLS) compared to laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) in patients with uterine prolapse. Ninety-eight patients with uterine prolapse were evaluated at our hospital from January 2021 to January 2023. Patients were equally divided into two groups: the study group (undergoing MSSLS) and the control group (undergoing LSC) using a random number table. Various parameters including operation time, bleeding volume, indwelling catheter time, exhaust time, hospital stay, pelvic organ prolapse stage, postoperative recurrence rate, pain severity, quality of life, pelvic floor function, impact on sexual life, complications, and recurrence rate were recorded. The study group showed significant reductions in operation time, bleeding volume, indwelling catheter time, exhaust time, and hospital stay compared to the control group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in Aa, Ba, Ap, Bp, and C between the two groups before surgery (P > 0.05), but six months postoperatively, these indexes were significantly lower in the study group (P < 0.05). Pain severity did not differ significantly between the two groups before surgery (P > 0.05), but was significantly lower in the study group six months postoperatively (P < 0.05). Quality of life, pelvic floor function, and sexual life quality did not significantly differ before surgery, at 6 months, and at 12 months postoperatively (P > 0.05). All patients were followed up for 12–14 months, with an average follow-up time of (13.02 ± 1.36) months. The incidence of complications was significantly lower in the study group (P < 0.05), but there were no recurrences in either group, thus the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). MSSLS emerges as a safe and efficacious treatment for uterine prolapse, notably reducing both complications and recurrence rates, rendering it suitable for broad clinical application.

Introduction and hypothesis Our aim was to compare the mid-term results of native tissue, biological xenograft and polypropylene mesh surgery for women with vaginal wall prolapse. Methods A total of 1348 women undergoing primary transvaginal repair of an anterior and/or posterior prolapse were recruited between January 2010 and August 2013 from 35 UK centres. They were randomised by remote allocation to native tissue surgery, biological xenograft or polypropylene mesh. We performed both 4- and 6-year follow-up using validated patient-reported outcome measures. Results At 4 and 6 years post-operation, there was no clinically important difference in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score for any of the treatments. Using a strict composite outcome to assess functional cure at 6 years, we found no difference in cure among the three types of surgery. Half the women were cured at 6 years but only 10.3 to 12% of women had undergone further surgery for prolapse. However, 8.4% of women in the mesh group had undergone further surgery for mesh complications. There was no difference in the incidence of chronic pain or dyspareunia between groups. Conclusions At the mid-term outcome of 6 years, there is no benefit from augmenting primary prolapse repairs with polypropylene mesh inlays or biological xenografts. There was no evidence that polypropylene mesh inlays caused greater pain or dyspareunia than native tissue repairs.

Introduction and hypothesisOur aim was to evaluate clinically relevant long-term outcomes of transvaginal mesh or native tissue repair in women with recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP).MethodsWe performed a 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial on trocar-guided mesh placement or native tissue repair in women with recurrent POP. Primary outcome was composite success, defined as absence of POP beyond the hymen, absence of bulge symptoms, and absence of retreatment for POP. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, pain, and dyspareunia. Multiple imputation was used for missing data of composite success and pain; estimates are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsBetween August 2006 and July 2008, 194 women were randomized; 190 underwent surgery. At 7 years, 142 (75%) were available for analysis, of whom, the primary outcome could be calculated in 127. Composite success was 53% (95% CI 41, 66) for mesh and 54% (95% CI 42, 65) for native tissue. Repeat surgery for POP was 25% for mesh and 16% for native tissue (difference 9%; 95% CI −5, 23) and occurred in untreated compartments in the mesh group and treated compartments in the native tissue group. Mesh exposure rate was 42%; pain with mesh 39% and native tissue 50% (difference − 11%, 95% CI −27, 6); dyspareunia with mesh 20% and native tissue 17% (difference 3%, 95% CI −9, 17).ConclusionsSeven-year composite success rates appeared similar for mesh and native tissue. Mesh did not reduce long-term repeat surgery rates due to de novo POP in nonmesh-treated vaginal compartments. Mesh exposure rates were high, though significant differences in pain and dyspareunia were not detected.Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00372190.

Introduction and hypothesisThe protocol and analysis methods for the Defining Mechanisms of Anterior Vaginal Wall Descent (DEMAND) study are presented. DEMAND was designed to identify mechanisms and contributors of prolapse recurrence after two transvaginal apical suspension procedures for uterovaginal prolapse.MethodsDEMAND is a supplementary cohort study of a clinical trial in which women with uterovaginal prolapse randomized to (1) vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension or (2) vaginal mesh hysteropexy underwent pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 30–42 months post-surgery. Standardized protocols have been developed to systematize MRI examinations across multiple sites and to improve reliability of MRI measurements. Anatomical failure, based on MRI, is defined as prolapse beyond the hymen. Anatomic measures from co-registered rest, maximal strain, and post-strain rest (recovery) sequences are obtained from the “true mid-sagittal” plane defined by a 3D pelvic coordinate system. The primary outcome is the mechanism of failure (apical descent versus anterior vaginal wall elongation). Secondary outcomes include displacement of the vaginal apex and perineal body and elongation of the anterior wall, posterior wall, perimeter, and introitus of the vagina between (1) rest and strain and (2) rest and recovery.ResultsRecruitment and MRI trials of 94 participants were completed by May 2018.ConclusionsMethods papers which detail studies designed to evaluate anatomic outcomes of prolapse surgeries are few. We describe a systematic, standardized approach to define and quantitatively assess mechanisms of anatomic failure following prolapse repair. This study will provide a better understanding of how apical prolapse repairs fail anatomically.

Background Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is prevalent among women, often occurring alongside anterior vaginal wall prolapse. This study compares the efficacy and safety of an improved vaginal wall repair technique with pubocervical fascia fixation versus standard anterior colporrhaphy for treating SUI in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Methods A single-centre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial was conducted between September 2021 and June 2024. Women aged 40–70 years with symptomatic SUI and stage 2–3 anterior vaginal wall prolapse were randomised to either the improved repair group or the standard repair group. The primary outcome was patient-reported success at 12 months post-surgery, defined as ‘very much improved’ or ‘much improved’ on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale. Secondary outcomes included objective cure rates, quality of life scores, urodynamic parameters, anatomical outcomes, perioperative outcomes and adverse events. Results A total of 102 women were randomised (51 in each group). At 12 months, the patient-reported success rate was significantly higher in the improved repair group (94.1% vs 78.4%, p  = 0.019). The objective cure rate was also higher in the improved repair group (90.2% vs 74.5%, p  = 0.038). Quality of life scores and urodynamic parameters showed greater improvements in the improved repair group. Anatomical success was achieved in 92.2% of the improved repair group compared with 80.4% in the standard repair group ( p  = 0.048). The improved repair technique was associated with longer operative time but lower estimated blood loss, shorter hospital stay and quicker return to normal activities. The overall complication rate was lower in the improved repair group (11.8% vs 23.5%, p  = 0.043). Conclusions The improved vaginal wall repair with pubocervical fascia fixation demonstrates superior outcomes compared with standard anterior colporrhaphy, with higher patient-reported success rates, improved quality of life and fewer complications.

Introduction and hypothesis Factors that contribute to reoperation and surgical approaches for the management of recurrent uterovaginal prolapse after vaginal mesh hysteropexy (mesh hysteropexy) are unknown. We aimed to describe surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after vaginal mesh hysteropexy, and patient characteristics in those who chose reoperation. Methods This is a descriptive analysis of women who experienced treatment failure within 5 years of mesh hysteropexy in a multi-site randomized trial. The composite definition of treatment failure included retreatment (pessary or reoperation), prolapse beyond the hymen, or bothersome prolapse symptoms. Characteristics of those pursuing and not pursuing repeat prolapse surgery, measures of prolapse, and symptom severity are described. Results Over 5-year follow up, 31/91 (34%) of the hysteropexy group met treatment failure criteria. All seven women who pursued reoperation reported bothersome prolapse symptoms; six were anatomic failures. Most seeking reoperation were early treatment failures; six (86%) by the 12-month visit and all by the 18-month visit. Compared to those electing expectant management, those pursuing reoperation had more apical prolapse, POP-Q point C median (IQR) −5.5 (−6.0, −4.0) cm versus +1.0 (−1.0, 3.0) cm respectively. Hysterectomy was performed in 6/7 reoperations (three vaginal, three endoscopic), with apical suspension in 5/6 hysterectomies. One participant with posterior compartment prolapse underwent transvaginal enterocele plication, uterosacral ligament suspension with posterior colpoperineorrhaphy. At a mean surgical follow-up of 34.3 (15.8) months, all women remained without anatomic or symptomatic failure. Conclusions When recurrent prolapse after mesh hysteropexy occurred, most women did not choose reoperation. Those who pursued surgery experienced more significant apical prolapse and were universally symptomatic. Clinical trial identification number NCT01802281