J Eric Jelovsek1, Matthew D Barber1, Linda Brubaker2,3, Peggy Norton4, Marie Gantz5, Holly E Richter6, Alison Weidner7, Shawn Menefee8, Joseph Schaffer9, Norma Pugh5, Susan Meikle10. 1. Obstetrics/Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology, Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Associate Editor. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Medical Center, Salt Lake City. 5. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southern California Kaiser Permanente, San Diego. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 10. Northwest Physician Group, Amarillo, Texas.
Abstract
Importance: Uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) are commonly performed pelvic organ prolapse procedures despite a lack of long-term efficacy data. Objective: To compare outcomes in women randomized to (1) ULS or SSLF and (2) usual care or perioperative behavioral therapy and pelvic floor muscle training (BPMT) for vaginal apical prolapse. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial was conducted at 9 US medical centers. Eligible participants who completed the Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss Trial enrolled between January 2008 and March 2011 and were followed up 5 years after their index surgery from April 2011 through June 2016. Interventions: Two randomizations: (1) BPMT (n = 186) or usual care (n = 188) and (2) surgical intervention (ULS: n = 188 or SSLF: n = 186). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary surgical outcome was time to surgical failure. Surgical failure was defined as (1) apical descent greater than one-third of total vaginal length or anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen or retreatment for prolapse (anatomic failure), or (2) bothersome bulge symptoms. The primary behavioral outcomes were time to anatomic failure and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores (range, 0-300). Results: The original study randomized 374 patients, of whom 309 were eligible for this extended trial. For this study, 285 enrolled (mean age, 57.2 years), of whom 244 (86%) completed the extended trial. By year 5, the estimated surgical failure rate was 61.5% in the ULS group and 70.3% in the SSLF group (adjusted difference, -8.8% [95% CI, -24.2 to 6.6]). The estimated anatomic failure rate was 45.6% in the BPMT group and 47.2% in the usual care group (adjusted difference, -1.6% [95% CI, -21.2 to 17.9]). Improvements in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores were -59.4 in the BPMT group and -61.8 in the usual care group (adjusted mean difference, 2.4 [95% CI, -13.7 to 18.4]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women who had undergone vaginal surgery for apical pelvic organ vaginal prolapse, there was no significant difference between ULS and SSLF in rates of surgical failure and no significant difference between perioperative behavioral muscle training and usual care on rates of anatomic success and symptom scores at 5 years. Compared with outcomes at 2 years, rates of surgical failure increased during the follow-up period, although prolapse symptom scores remained improved. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01166373.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) are commonly performed pelvic organ prolapse procedures despite a lack of long-term efficacy data. Objective: To compare outcomes in women randomized to (1) ULS or SSLF and (2) usual care or perioperative behavioral therapy and pelvic floor muscle training (BPMT) for vaginal apical prolapse. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial was conducted at 9 US medical centers. Eligible participants who completed the Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss Trial enrolled between January 2008 and March 2011 and were followed up 5 years after their index surgery from April 2011 through June 2016. Interventions: Two randomizations: (1) BPMT (n = 186) or usual care (n = 188) and (2) surgical intervention (ULS: n = 188 or SSLF: n = 186). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary surgical outcome was time to surgical failure. Surgical failure was defined as (1) apical descent greater than one-third of total vaginal length or anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen or retreatment for prolapse (anatomic failure), or (2) bothersome bulge symptoms. The primary behavioral outcomes were time to anatomic failure and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores (range, 0-300). Results: The original study randomized 374 patients, of whom 309 were eligible for this extended trial. For this study, 285 enrolled (mean age, 57.2 years), of whom 244 (86%) completed the extended trial. By year 5, the estimated surgical failure rate was 61.5% in the ULS group and 70.3% in the SSLF group (adjusted difference, -8.8% [95% CI, -24.2 to 6.6]). The estimated anatomic failure rate was 45.6% in the BPMT group and 47.2% in the usual care group (adjusted difference, -1.6% [95% CI, -21.2 to 17.9]). Improvements in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores were -59.4 in the BPMT group and -61.8 in the usual care group (adjusted mean difference, 2.4 [95% CI, -13.7 to 18.4]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women who had undergone vaginal surgery for apical pelvic organ vaginal prolapse, there was no significant difference between ULS and SSLF in rates of surgical failure and no significant difference between perioperative behavioral muscle training and usual care on rates of anatomic success and symptom scores at 5 years. Compared with outcomes at 2 years, rates of surgical failure increased during the follow-up period, although prolapse symptom scores remained improved. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01166373.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Alison C Weidner; Shawn A Menefee; Emily S Lukacz; Peggy Norton; Joseph Schaffer; John N Nguyen; Diane Borello-France; Patricia S Goode; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cathie Spino; Lauren Klein Warren; Marie G Gantz; Susan F Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emily S Lukacz; Lauren Klein Warren; Holly E Richter; Linda Brubaker; Matthew D Barber; Peggy Norton; Alison C Weidner; John N Nguyen; Marie G Gantz Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Mary P FitzGerald; Kathryn L Burgio; Diane F Borello-France; Shawn A Menefee; Joseph Schaffer; Stephen Kraus; Veronica T Mallett; Yan Xu Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2007-08-07
Authors: Andrea Braga; Maurizio Serati; Stefano Salvatore; Marco Torella; Roberto Pasqualetti; Andrea Papadia; Giorgio Caccia Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Linda Brubaker; J Eric Jelovsek; Emily S Lukacz; Sunil Balgobin; Alicia Ballard; Alison C Weidner; Marie G Gantz; Ryan Whitworth; Donna Mazloomdoost Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Anne G Sammarco; David D Sheyn; Tessa E Krantz; Cedric K Olivera; Antonio A Rodrigues; Ms Emily K Kobernik; Mariana Masteling; John O Delancey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Emily A Slopnick; Andrey Petrikovets; David Sheyn; Simon P Kim; Carvell T Nguyen; Adonis K Hijaz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Danny Mounir; Nyla O Vasquez-Tran; Fiona M Lindo; Danielle D Antosh; Tristi W Muir Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 2.894