Literature DB >> 27696355

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.

Christopher Maher1, Benjamin Feiner, Kaven Baessler, Corina Christmann-Schmid, Nir Haya, Julie Brown.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Apical vaginal prolapse is a descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available and 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 (searched July 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched January 2016). 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 30 RCTs (3414 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence quality ranged from low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodological reporting and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures versus sacral colpopexy (six RCTs, n = 583; one to four-year review). Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.21, 3 RCTs, n = 277, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). If 7% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 14% (7% to 27%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Repeat surgery for prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.32; 4 RCTs, n = 383, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 4% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, between 5% and 18% would require it after vaginal procedures.We found no conclusive evidence that vaginal procedures increaserepeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) (RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.86; 4 RCTs, n = 395; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). If 3% of women require repeat surgery for SUI after sacral colpopexy, between 2% and 16% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Recurrent prolapse is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.70; 4 RCTs, n = 390; I2 = 41%, moderate-quality evidence). If 23% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, about 41% (31% to 63%) are likely to do so after vaginal procedures.The effect of vaginal procedures on bladder injury was uncertain (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.36; 5 RCTs, n = 511; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). SUI was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Dyspareunia was also more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.50; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I2 = 43%, low-quality evidence). Vaginal surgery with mesh versus without mesh (6 RCTs, n = 598, 1-3 year review). Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.08 95% CI 0.35 to 3.30 1 RCT n = 54, low quality evidence). The confidence interval was wide suggesting that if 18% of women are aware of prolapse after surgery without mesh, between 6% and 59% will be aware of prolapse after surgery with mesh. Repeat surgery for prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.60; 5 RCTs, n = 497; I2 = 9%, low-quality evidence). If 4% of women require repeat surgery for prolapse after surgery without mesh, 1% to 7% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh.We found no conclusive evidence that surgery with mesh increases repeat surgery for SUI (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 27.94; 2 RCTs, n = 220; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The confidence interval was wide suggesting that if 2% of women require repeat surgery for SUI after vaginal colpopexy without mesh, 2% to 53% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh.We found no clear evidence that surgery with mesh decreases recurrent prolapse (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.40; 3 RCTs n = 269; I2 = 91%, low-quality evidence). The confidence interval was very wide and there was serious inconsistency between the studies. Other outcomes There is probably little or no difference between the groups in rates of SUI (de novo) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.99; 4 RCTs, n = 295; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) or dyspareunia (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.66; 5 RCTs, n = 501; I2 = 0% moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is any difference for bladder injury (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 9.89; 4 RCTs, n = 445; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy versus alternatives for uterine prolapse (six studies, n = 667)No clear conclusions could be reached from the available evidence, though one RCT found that awareness of prolapse was less likely after hysterectomy than after abdominal sacrohysteropexy (RR 0.38, 955 CI 0.15 to 0.98, n = 84, moderate-quality evidence).Other comparisonsThere was no evidence of a difference for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (two RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (two RCTs), different routes for sacral colpopexy (four RCTs), or between sacral colpopexy with and without continence surgery (four RCTs). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, postoperative SUI and dyspareunia than a variety of vaginal interventions.The limited evidence does not support use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. Most of the evaluated transvaginal meshes are no longer available and new lighter meshes currently lack evidence of safetyThe evidence was inconclusive when comparing access routes for sacral colpopexy.No clear conclusion can be reached from the available data comparing uterine preserving surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27696355      PMCID: PMC6457970          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  48 in total

1.  A likelihood approach to analyzing clinical trial data when treatments favor different outcomes.

Authors:  Leslie Ain McClure; Morton B Brown
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2006-01-19       Impact factor: 2.226

2.  High levator myorraphy versus uterosacral ligament suspension for vaginal vault fixation: a prospective, randomized study.

Authors:  Franca Natale; Chiara La Penna; Anna Padoa; Massimo Agostini; Massimo Panei; Mauro Cervigni
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-02-26       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Must colposuspension be associated with sacropexy to prevent postoperative urinary incontinence?

Authors:  Elisabetta Costantini; Alessandro Zucchi; Antonella Giannantoni; Luigi Mearini; Vittorio Bini; Massimo Porena
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2006-09-05       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Combined anterior vaginal wall mesh with sacrospinous ligament fixation or with posterior intravaginal slingplasty for uterovaginal or vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  Pentti K Heinonen; Kari Nieminen
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2011-05-10       Impact factor: 2.435

5.  Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study.

Authors:  Philip Rahmanou; Natalia Price; Simon R Jackson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-07-04       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  A randomized comparison of post-operative pain, quality of life, and physical performance during the first 6 weeks after abdominal or vaginal surgical correction of descensus uteri.

Authors:  J P W R Roovers; J G van der Bom; C H van der Vaart; J H Schagen van Leeuwen; P C Scholten; A P M Heintz
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.696

7.  Infracoccygeal sacropexy or sacrospinous suspension for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

Authors:  R de Tayrac; M-L Mathé; G Bader; X Deffieux; A Fazel; H Fernandez
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2007-09-27       Impact factor: 3.561

8.  Porcine dermis compared with polypropylene mesh for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Patrick J Culligan; Charbel Salamon; Jennifer L Priestley; Amir Shariati
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Jelle Stekelenburg; Joanna IntHout; Mark E Vierhout; Kirsten B Kluivers; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-07-23

10.  One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study.

Authors:  Viviane Dietz; Carl H van der Vaart; Yolanda van der Graaf; Peter Heintz; Steven E Schraffordt Koops
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2009-10-16       Impact factor: 2.894

View more
  84 in total

1.  Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach.

Authors:  Sara Houlihan; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Colin Birch; Selphee Tang; Erin A Brennand
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Long-term outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with or without transobturator tape.

Authors:  Maria Lee; Se-Gyeong Joo; Tae Yeon Kim; Eun-Hee Yoo; Myung Jae Jeon
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Robotic Sacrocolpopexy-Is It the Treatment of Choice for Advanced Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse?

Authors:  Janine L Oliver; Ja-Hong Kim
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Computed-tomography image segmentation and 3D-reconstruction of the female pelvis for the preoperative planning of sacrocolpopexy: preliminary data.

Authors:  Gianluca Albanesi; Andrea Giannini; Marina Carbone; Eleonora Russo; Paolo Mannella; Vincenzo Ferrari; Tommaso Simoncini
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral sacrospinous fixation plus an anterior mesh versus abdominal sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of primary apical prolapse in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Edilson Benedito de Castro; Luiz Gustavo O Brito; Cassia Raquel T Juliato
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  FPMRS challenges on behalf of the Collaborative Research in Pelvic Surgery Consortium (CoRPS): managing complicated cases : Series 3: Challenging recurrent prolapse in a medically complicated patient.

Authors:  Danielle D Antosh; Ladin A Yurteri-Kaplan; David Shveiky; Madalena Liu; Chris Heisler; Aparna Hegde; Cara L Grimes
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-04-29       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey.

Authors:  Carolien K M Vermeulen; Anne Lotte W M Coolen; Wilbert A Spaans; Jan Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Two-Year Results of Burch Compared With Midurethral Sling With Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Emanuel C Trabuco; Brian J Linder; Christopher J Klingele; Roberta E Blandon; John A Occhino; Amy L Weaver; Michaela E McGree; John B Gebhart
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Additional treatments, satisfaction, symptoms and quality of life in women 1 year after vaginal and abdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair.

Authors:  Laura N Nguyen; Morgan Gruner; Kim A Killinger; Kenneth M Peters; Judith A Boura; Michelle Jankowski; Larry T Sirls
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.