Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more of the pelvic organs (uterus, vaginal apex, bladder, or bowel) into the vagina. In recent years, surgeons have increasingly used grafts in transvaginal repairs. Graft material can be synthetic or biological. The aim is to reduce prolapse recurrence and surpass the effectiveness of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. This is a review update; the previous version was published in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair or other grafts in the surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and two clinical trials registers (March 2022). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 RCTs (7846 women). The certainty of the evidence was largely moderate (ranging from very low to moderate). Transvaginal permanent mesh versus native tissue repair Awareness of prolapse at six months to seven years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.95; I2 = 34%; 17 studies, 2932 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 23% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 17% and 22% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair. Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95; I2 = 35%; 17 studies, 2485 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for incontinence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.59; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 2206 women; moderate-certainty evidence). However, more women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.26; I2 = 54%; 27 studies, 3916 women; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 7.1% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7.6% and 16% will require repeat surgery after permanent mesh repair. The rate of mesh exposure was 11.8% and surgery for mesh exposure was 6.1% in women who had mesh repairs. Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; I2 = 84%; 25 studies, 3680 women; very low-certainty evidence). Permanent transvaginal mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 2001 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.28; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1997 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.79; I2 = 27%; 16 studies, 1308 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life outcomes; however, there was substantial heterogeneity in the data. Transvaginal absorbable mesh versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the two methods of repair at two years for the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44; 1 study, 54 women), rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40; 1 study, 66 women), or recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.70; 1 study, 66 women). The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for bladder-related outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Transvaginal biological graft versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1374 women; moderate-certainty evidence), repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 899 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; I2 = 53%; 9 studies, 1278 women; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life. Transvaginal permanent mesh versus any other permanent mesh or biological graft vaginal repair Sparse reporting of primary outcomes in both comparisons significantly limited any meaningful analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of total repeat surgery (for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure), bladder injury, and de novo stress urinary incontinence. While the direction of effects and effect sizes are relatively unchanged from the 2016 version of this review, the certainty and precision of the findings have all improved with a larger sample size. In addition, the clinical relevance of these data has improved, with 10 trials reporting 3- to 10-year outcomes. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. Data on the management of recurrent prolapse are of limited quality. Given the risk-benefit profile, we recommend that any use of permanent transvaginal mesh should be conducted under the oversight of the local ethics committee in compliance with local regulatory recommendations. Data are not supportive of absorbable meshes or biological grafts for the management of transvaginal 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.

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 ß-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.

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.

Summary: 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence Evidence-Based Surgical Pathway for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to summarize the relevant findings that inform the 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence pathway for surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). METHODS: We conducted an evidence-based review of the English-language peer-reviewed literature relating to POP surgery published prior to December 2016. Level 1 evidence (randomized controlled trials [RCTs] or systematic reviews of RCTs) was preferred; however, level 2 (poor-quality RCT, prospective cohort studies) or 3 evidence (case series or retrospective studies) has been included if level 1 data were lacking. The committee evaluated the literature and made recommendations based on the Oxford grading system summarized as follows: grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence; grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs; grade C recommendation usually depends on level 3 studies or "majority evidence" from level 2/3 studies or Delphi-processed expert opinion; grade D, "no recommendation possible," would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting. RESULTS: The recommendations from each chapter of the review are presented and serve to inform an evidence-based pathway for the surgical treatment of prolapse. A Web-based interactive application of the pathway is presented. CONCLUSIONS: The 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence pathway on surgery for POP is designed as an adjunct to transparent consultation and consent relating to POP surgery. The final decision regarding surgical intervention can be made only after a shared decision-making process between the patient and the clinician that will evaluate a variety of individual factors that cannot be assessed in the pathway.

The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to establish the minimal important difference (MID) of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) in women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence or symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. A further aim was to estimate dysfunction scores dependent on the bothersomeness in a community cohort. METHODS: The APFQ was completed before and 6 weeks after pelvic floor surgery by 183 women (n = 80 suburethral tape insertion; n = 103 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy). Distribution and anchor-based methods were used to establish the effect size, standardised response mean and MID (calculated as the difference between women who stated no change or a little better in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I]). In a community cohort of 470 women aged 42-80 years, the APFQ was analysed according to disclosed bothersomeness. RESULTS: For the suburethral tape group, the effect size in the bladder domain was 1.5 and the PGI-I-based MID 1.3. For the POP surgery, group the effect size in the prolapse domain was calculated at 2.2 and the PGI-I-based MID at 1.0. The domain scores for women who declared no bother were significantly different from those who were a little bothered (bladder domain 2.2 vs 4.0, bowel 0.6 vs 1.7, POP 0.1 vs 3.2, sex 1.8 vs 3.0) with wide variations. CONCLUSIONS: The MID of the APFQ ranged from 1.0 to 1.3 in the domains after POP or continence surgery respectively. This is corroborated by the differences in domain scores from community-based women who were bothered versus not bothered by pelvic floor symptoms.

Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common in women and is frequently associated with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). In many cases however, SUI is present only with the prolapse reduced (occult SUI) or may develop after surgical treatment for prolapse (de novo SUI). OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact on postoperative bladder function of surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse with or without concomitant or delayed two-stage continence procedures to treat or prevent stress urinary incontinence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE-In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching journals and conference proceedings (searched 11 November 2017) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including surgical operations for POP with or without continence procedures in continent or incontinent women. Our primary outcome was subjective postoperative SUI. Secondary outcomes included recurrent POP on examination, overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, and voiding dysfunction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs (2717 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (especially blinding of outcome assessors), indirectness and imprecision associated with low event rates and small samples.POP surgery in women with SUIVaginal repair with vs without concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS)A concomitant MUS probably improves postoperative rates of subjective SUI, as the evaluated clinical effect appears large (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.48; 319 participants, two studies; I² = 28%; moderate-quality evidence), and probably decreases the need for further continence surgery (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74; 134 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk of SUI with POP surgery alone is 39%, the risk with an MUS is between 8% and 19%.Rates of recurrent POP on examination, OAB, and voiding dysfunction were not reported.Vaginal repair with concomitant vs delayed MUSEvidence suggested little or no difference between groups in reporting postoperative SUI (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.37; 140 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence).Rates of recurrent POP on examination, OAB, and voiding dysfunction and the need for further surgery were not reported.Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with vs without Burch colposuspensionAn additional Burch colposuspension probably has little or no effect on postoperative SUI at one year (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.60; 47 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), OAB symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18; 33 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), or voiding dysfunction (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.43; 47 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). Rates of recurrent POP and the need for further surgery were not reported.POP surgery in women with occult SUIVaginal repair with vs without concomitant MUSMUS probably improves rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.55; 369 participants, five studies; I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk with surgery alone is 34%, the risk with a concomitant MUS is between 10% and 22%. Evidence suggests little or no difference between groups in rates of recurrent POP (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.19; 50 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), OAB symptoms (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07; 43 participants, one study; low-quality evidence), or voiding dysfunction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.55; 50 participants, one study; low-quality evidence). The need for further surgery was not reported.POP surgery in continent women Vaginal repair with vs without concomitant MUSResearchers provided no conclusive evidence of a difference between groups in rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.00; 220 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk with surgery alone is 40%, the risk with a concomitant MUS is between 19% and 40%. Rates of recurrent POP, OAB, and voiding dysfunction and the need for further surgery were not reported.Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with vs without Burch colposuspensionWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.19 to 9.01; 379 participants, two studies; I² = 90%; low-quality evidence), as RCTs produced results in different directions with a very wide confidence interval. We are also uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in rates of voiding dysfunction (RR 8.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 151.59; 66 participants, one study; low-quality evidence) or recurrent POP (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.30; 250 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence. No study reported OAB symptoms and need for further surgery.Vaginal repair with armed anterior vaginal mesh repair vs anterior native tissue Anterior armed mesh repair may slightly increase postoperative de novo SUI (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.37; 905 participants, seven studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) but may decrease recurrent POP (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.38; 848 participants, five studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in rates of voiding dysfunction (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.10; 125 participants, two studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Rates of OAB and the need for further surgery were not reported.Adverse events were infrequently reported in all studies; cost was not studied in any trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women with POP and SUI (symptomatic or occult), a concurrent MUS probably reduces postoperative SUI and should be discussed in counselling. It might be feasible to postpone the MUS and perform a delayed (two-stage) continence procedure, if required.Although an abdominal continence procedure (Burch colposuspension) during abdominal POP surgery in continent women reduced de novo SUI rates in one underpowered trial, another RCT reported conflicting results. Adding an MUS during vaginal POP repair might reduce postoperative development of SUI.An anterior native tissue repair might be better than use of transobturator mesh for preventing postoperative SUI; however, prolapse recurrence is more common with native tissue repair.

Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects as many as 50% of parous women, with 14% to 19% of women undergoing a surgical correction. Although surgery for the treatment of POP is common, limited supportive data can be found in the literature regarding the preoperative and postoperative interventions related to these procedures. The main goal of perioperative interventions is to reduce the rate of adverse events while improving women's outcomes following surgical intervention for prolapse. A broad spectrum of perioperative interventions are available, and although the benefits of interventions such as prophylactic antibiotics before abdominal surgery are well established, others are unique to women undergoing POP surgeries and as such need to be investigated separately. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to compare the safety and effectiveness of a range of perioperative interventions versus other interventions or no intervention (control group) at the time of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 November 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse that compared a perioperative intervention related to pelvic organ prolapse surgery versus no treatment or another intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were objective failure at any site and subjective postoperative prolapse symptoms. We also measured adverse effects, focusing on intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, and postoperative urinary tract infection. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs that compared eight different interventions versus no treatment for 1992 women in five countries. Most interventions were assessed by only one RCT with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate. The main limitation was imprecision, associated with small sample sizes and low event rates.Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with no treatment (three RCTs) - peri-operative intervention The simplest of the PFMT programmes required women to attend six perioperative consultations in the three months surrounding prolapse surgery. Trial results provided no clear evidence of a difference between groups in objective failure at any site at 12 to 24 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.54; two RCTs, 327 women; moderate-quality evidence). With respect to awareness of prolapse, findings were inconsistent. One RCT found no evidence of a difference between groups at 24 months (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87; one RCT, 305 women; low-quality evidence), and a second small RCT reported symptom reduction from the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Questionnaire completed by the intervention group at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -3.90, 95% CI -6.11 to -1.69; one RCT, 27 women; low-quality evidence). Researchers found no clear differences between groups at 24-month follow-up in rates of repeat surgery (or pessary) for prolapse (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.02; one RCT, 316 women; low-quality evidence).Other interventionsSingle RCTs evaluated the following interventions: preoperative guided imagery (N = 44); injection of vasoconstrictor agent at commencement of vaginal prolapse surgery (N = 76); ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension (N = 91); vaginal pack (N = 116); prophylactic antibiotics for women requiring postoperative urinary catheterisation (N = 159); and postoperative vaginal dilators (N = 60).Two RCTs evaluated bowel preparation (N = 298), and four RCTs assessed the method and timing of postoperative catheterisation (N = 514) - all in different comparisons.None of these studies reported our primary review outcomes. One study reported intraoperative blood loss and suggested that vaginal injection of vasoconstrictors at commencement of surgery may reduce blood loss by a mean of about 30 mL. Another study reported intraoperative ureteral injury and found no clear evidence that ureteral stent placement reduces ureteral injury. Three RCTs reported postoperative urinary tract infection and found no conclusive evidence that rates of urinary tract infection were influenced by use of a vaginal pack, prophylactic antibiotics, or vaginal dilators. Other studies did not report these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was a paucity of data about perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. A structured programme of pelvic floor muscle training before and after prolapse surgery did not consistently demonstrate any benefit for the intervention; however, this finding is based on the results of two small studies. With regard to other interventions (preoperative bowel preparation and injection of vasoconstrictor agent, ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension, postoperative vaginal pack insertion, use of vaginal dilators, prophylactic antibiotics for postoperative catheter care), we found no evidence regarding rates of recurrent prolapse and no clear evidence that these interventions were associated with clinically meaningful reductions in adverse effects, such as intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, or postoperative urinary tract infection.

Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Posterior vaginal wall prolapse (also known as 'posterior compartment prolapse') can cause a sensation of bulge in the vagina along with symptoms of obstructed defecation and sexual dysfunction. Interventions for prevention and conservative management include lifestyle measures, pelvic floor muscle training, and pessary use. We conducted this review to assess the surgical management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of any surgical intervention compared with another surgical intervention for management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched April 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were subjective awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for any prolapse, and objectively determined recurrent posterior wall prolapse. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs evaluating 1099 women. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of evidence quality were risk of bias (associated mainly with performance, detection, and attrition biases) and imprecision (associated with small overall sample sizes and low event rates).Transanal repair versus transvaginal repair (four RCTs; n = 191; six months' to four years' follow-up)Awareness of prolapse is probably more common after the transanal approach (risk ratio (RR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 7.70; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). If 10% of women are aware of prolapse after transvaginal repair, between 10% and 79% are likely to be aware after transanal repair.Repeat surgery for any prolapse: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.88; 1 RCT; n = 57; low-quality evidence).Recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse is probably more likely after transanal repair (RR 4.12, 95% CI 1.56 to 10.88; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I2 = 35%; moderate-quality evidence). If 10% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after transvaginal repair, between 16% and 100% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after transanal repair.Postoperative obstructed defecation is probably more likely with transanal repair (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.79; 3 RCTs; n = 113; I2 = 10%; low-quality evidence).Postoperative dyspareunia: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 2 RCTs; n = 80; I2 = 5%; moderate-quality evidence).Postoperative complications: Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of any differences between groups (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.94 to 13.54; 3 RCTs; n = 135; I2 = 37%; low-quality evidence). If 2% of women have complications after transvaginal repair, then between 2% and 21% are likely to have complications after transanal repair.Evidence shows no clear differences between groups in operating time (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 1.49, 95% CI -11.83 to 8.84; 3 RCTs; n = 137; I2 = 90%; very low-quality evidence).Biological graft versus native tissue repairEvidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.62; 2 RCTs; n = 181; I2 = 13%; moderate-quality evidence) or repeat surgery for any prolapse (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.97; 2 RCTs; n = 271; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of a difference in rates of recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; 3 RCTs; n = 377; I2 = 6%; moderate-quality evidence); if 13% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after native tissue repair, between 4% and 13% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after biological graft. Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of postoperative obstructed defecation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 2 RCTs; n = 172; I2 = 42%; moderate-quality evidence) or postoperative dyspareunia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.25; 2 RCTs; n = 152; I2 = 74%; low-quality evidence). Postoperative complications were more common with biological repair (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.72; 3 RCTs; n = 448; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsSingle RCTs compared site-specific vaginal repair versus midline fascial plication (n = 74), absorbable graft versus native tissue repair (n = 132), synthetic graft versus native tissue repair (n = 191), and levator ani plication versus midline fascial plication (n = 52). Data were scanty, and evidence was insufficient to show any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of any of these interventions. The mesh exposure rate in the synthetic group compared with the native tissue group was 7%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Transvaginal repair may be more effective than transanal repair for posterior wall prolapse in preventing recurrence of prolapse, in the light of both objective and subjective measures. However, data on adverse effects were scanty. Evidence was insufficient to permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of other types of surgery. Evidence does not support the utilisation of any mesh or graft materials at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market may limit the generalisability of our findings.

Self-Reported Long-Term Autonomic Function After Laparoscopic Total Mesometrial Resection for Early-Stage Cervical Cancer: A Multicentric Study.

OBJECTIVES: This multicentric retrospective study investigates the early and long-term self-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual dysfunctions in early-stage cervical cancer patients who submitted to laparoscopic total mesometrial resection (L-TMMR), total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, and laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy. METHODS: Cervical cancer patients, FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IA2-IB1/IIA1 who submitted to nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy were recruited. Pelvic functions were assessed within 30 days (early outcome) and 12 months after surgery (long-term outcome). RESULTS: Two hundred thirteen subjects receiving nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy were enrolled. Laparoscopic total mesometrial resection was performed in 46 patients (21.6%), total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in 65 patients (30.5%), vaginal-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in 54 patients (25.4%), and laparoscopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy in 48 women (22.5%). Operative time was significantly lower in the L-TMMR group (240 minutes; range, 120-670 minutes; P = 0.001). The overall perioperative complication rate was 11.3%, with no statistically significant differences among the 4 groups. Stress incontinence and sensation of bladder incomplete emptying were detected, respectively, in 54 patients (25.6%) and 65 patients (30.7%) with a significantly lower prevalence among those in the L-TMMR group, which resulted, respectively, in 11.1% (P = 0.022) and 13.3% (P = 0.036). The prevalence rates of constipation, sensation of incomplete bowel emptying, and effort during evacuation were significantly higher among those in the L-TMMR group, resulting in, respectively, 37% (P = 0.001), 42.3% (P = 0.012), and 50% (P = 0.039). One hundred forty-nine patients (70%) were sexually active. Fifty-eight women (38.9%) reported low enjoyment, 83 women (55.7%) medium enjoyment, and 8 women (5.4%) reported high enjoyment, without statistically significant differences among the 4 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic total mesometrial resection is associated with improved long-term urinary autonomic functions and worse gastrointestinal autonomic outcome. Further larger prospective trials are needed to evaluate both the oncological and functional outcomes in order to establish the most appropriate surgical approach for early-stage cervical cancer patients.

Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse.

BACKGROUND: To minimise the rate of recurrent prolapse after traditional native tissue repair (anterior colporrhaphy), clinicians have utilised a variety of surgical techniques. OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and effectiveness of surgery for anterior compartment prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process (23 August 2016), handsearched journals and conference proceedings (15 February 2016) and searched trial registers (1 August 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined surgical operations for anterior compartment prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse on examination. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 trials (3332 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. We have summarised results for the main comparisons. Native tissue versus biological graft Awareness of prolapse: Evidence suggested few or no differences between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.82; five RCTs; 552 women; I2 = 39%; low-quality evidence), indicating that if 12% of women were aware of prolapse after biological graft, 7% to 23% would be aware after native tissue repair. Repeat surgery for prolapse: Results showed no probable differences between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.97; seven RCTs; 650 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), indicating that if 4% of women required repeat surgery after biological graft, 2% to 9% would do so after native tissue repair. Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse: Native tissue repair probably increased the risk of recurrence (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; eight RCTs; 701 women; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), indicating that if 26% of women had recurrent prolapse after biological graft, 27% to 42% would have recurrence after native tissue repair. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI): Results showed no probable differences between groups (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.64; two RCTs; 218 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Dyspareunia: Evidence suggested few or no differences between groups (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.93; two RCTs; 151 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Native tissue versus polypropylene mesh Awareness of prolapse: This was probably more likely after native tissue repair (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28; nine RCTs; 1133 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 13% of women were aware of prolapse after mesh repair, 18% to 30% would be aware of prolapse after native tissue repair. Repeat surgery for prolapse: This was probably more likely after native tissue repair (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.58; 12 RCTs; 1629 women; I2 = 39%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 2% of women needed repeat surgery after mesh repair, 2% to 7% would do so after native tissue repair. Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse: This was probably more likely after native tissue repair (RR 3.01, 95% CI 2.52 to 3.60; 16 RCTs; 1976 women; I2 = 39%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if recurrent prolapse occurred in 13% of women after mesh repair, 32% to 45% would have recurrence after native tissue repair. Repeat surgery for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence or mesh exposure (composite outcome): This was probably less likely after native tissue repair (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.83; 12 RCTs; 1527 women; I2 = 45%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 10% of women require repeat surgery after polypropylene mesh repair, 4% to 8% would do so after native tissue repair. De novo SUI: Evidence suggested few or no differences between groups (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.01; six RCTs; 957 women; I2 = 26%; low-quality evidence). No evidence suggested a difference in rates of repeat surgery for SUI. Dyspareunia (de novo): Evidence suggested few or no differences between groups (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.06; eight RCTs; n = 583; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Native tissue versus absorbable mesh Awareness of prolapse: It is unclear whether results showed any differences between groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.31; one RCT; n = 54; very low-quality evidence), Repeat surgery for prolapse: It is unclear whether results showed any differences between groups (RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.42 to 10.82; one RCT; n = 66; very low-quality evidence). Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse: This is probably more likely after native tissue repair (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.06; three RCTs; n = 268; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 27% have recurrent prolapse after mesh repair, 29% to 55% would have recurrent prolapse after native tissue repair. SUI: It is unclear whether results showed any differences between groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.05; one RCT; n = 49; very low-quality evidence). Dyspareunia: No data were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Biological graft repair or absorbable mesh provides minimal advantage compared with native tissue repair.Native tissue repair was associated with increased awareness of prolapse and increased risk of repeat surgery for prolapse and recurrence of anterior compartment prolapse compared with polypropylene mesh repair. However, native tissue repair was associated with reduced risk of de novo SUI, reduced bladder injury, and reduced rates of repeat surgery for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence and mesh exposure (composite outcome).Current evidence does not support the use of mesh repair compared with native tissue repair for anterior compartment prolapse owing to increased morbidity.Many transvaginal polypropylene meshes have been voluntarily removed from the market, and newer light-weight transvaginal meshes that are available have not been assessed by RCTs. Clinicans and women should be cautious when utilising these products, as their safety and efficacy have not been established.

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.

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.

Short and long-term urodynamic and quality of life assessment after nerve sparing radical hysterectomy: a prospective pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare pre- and postoperative bladder function and quality of life (QoL) in women diagnosed with gynecologic malignancy and treated with nerve sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH). STUDY DESIGN: Before and after NSRH for uterine malignancy, bladder function was prospectively assessed in a small cohort of 12 women (39-72 years) suffering from uterine malignancy using urodynamic studies and a validated self-administered condition specific QoL questionnaire. Urodynamic studies were performed one day before (U0) as well as one week (U1) and 22 months (U2) after surgery. The questionnaire was applied at U0 and U2. RESULTS: Cystometry showed detrusor contractions leading to overactive bladder incontinence in six out of nine women at short-term, which persisted in three women at long-term follow-up leading to a significant impaired QoL. Voiding function and bladder sensation remained uncompromised after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: NSRH preserves voiding function and bladder sensation. However, short and long-term urodynamic detrusor overactivity and urge incontinence was observed in a significant number of women although symptoms improved over time. These data are important for counselling women and for the design of larger studies to assess the benefits of NSRH versus conventional radical hysterectomy (RH).

Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of grafts have been introduced with the aim of improving the outcomes of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ongoing trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (6 July 2015). We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 RCTs (4023 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were poor reporting of study methods, inconsistency, and imprecision. Permanent mesh versus native tissue repairAwareness of prolapse at one to three years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1614, I(2) = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 19% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 10% and 15% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair.Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, 12 RCTs, n = 1675, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for continence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.83, 9 RCTs, n = 1284, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). More women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.81, 7 RCTs, n = 867, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 5% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7% and 18% in the permanent mesh group will do so. Eight per cent of women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for mesh exposure.Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53, 21 RCTs, n = 2494, I(2) = 73%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 38% of women have recurrent prolapse after native tissue repair, between 11% and 20% will do so after mesh repair.Permanent mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.82, 12 RCTs, 1512 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.92, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.50, 11 RCTs, n = 1514, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.47, 11 RCTs, n = 764, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). Effects on quality of life were uncertain due to the very low-quality evidence. Absorbable mesh versus native tissue repairThere was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair at two years on the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, 1 RCT, n = 54).There was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair on the rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40, 1 RCT, n = 66).Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, 3 RCTs, n = 292, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence)The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for urinary outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Biological graft versus native tissue repairThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43, 7 RCTs, n = 777, low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the outcome repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.44, 5 RCTs, n = 306, I(2) = 8%, low-quality evidence).The effect of either approach was very uncertain for recurrent prolapse (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.47, 7 RCTs, n = 587, I(2) = 59%, very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life outcomes (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, reoperation for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of reoperation for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure and higher rates of bladder injury at surgery and de novo stress urinary incontinence. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. While it is possible that in women with higher risk of recurrence the benefits may outweigh the risks, there is currently no evidence to support this position.Limited evidence suggests that absorbable mesh may reduce rates of recurrent prolapse on examination compared to native tissue repair, but there was insufficient evidence on absorbable mesh for us to draw any conclusions for other outcomes. There was also insufficient evidence for us to draw any conclusions regarding biological grafts compared to native tissue repair.In 2011, many transvaginal permanent meshes were voluntarily withdrawn from the market, and the newer, lightweight transvaginal permanent meshes still available have not been evaluated within a RCT. In the meantime, these newer transvaginal meshes should be utilised under the discretion of the ethics committee.

Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the rates and types of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and female continence surgery performed in member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2012. STUDY DESIGN: The published health outcome data sources of the 34 OECD countries were contacted for data on POP and female continence interventions from 2010-2012. In nonresponding countries, data were sought from national or insurer databases. Extracted data were entered into an age-specific International Classification of Disease, edition 10 (ICD-10)-compliant Excel spreadsheet by 2 authors independently in English-speaking countries and a single author in non-English-speaking countries. Data were collated centrally and discrepancies were resolved by mutual agreement. RESULTS: We report on 684,250 POP and 410,352 continence procedures that were performed in 15 OECD countries in 2012. POP procedures (median rate, 1.38/1000 women; range, 0.51-2.55 prolapse procedures/1000 women) were performed 1.8 times more frequently than continence procedures (median rate, 0.75/1000 women; range, 0.46-1.65 continence procedures/1000 women). Repairs of the anterior vaginal compartment represented 54% of POP procedures; posterior repairs represented 43% of the procedures, and apical compartment repairs represented 20% of POP procedures. Median rate of graft usage was 15.7% of anterior vaginal repairs (range, 3.3-25.6%) and 8.5% (range, 3.2-17%) of posterior vaginal repairs. Apical compartment repairs were repaired vaginally at a median rate of 70% (range, 35-95%). Sacral colpopexy represented a median rate of 17% (range, 5-65%) of apical repairs; 61% of sacral colpopexies were performed minimally invasively. Between 2010 and 2012, there was a 3.7% median reduction in transvaginal grafts, a 4.0% reduction in midurethral slings, and a 25% increase in sacral colpopexies that were performed per 1000 women. Midurethral slings represented 82% of female continence surgeries. CONCLUSION: The 5-fold variation in the rate of prolapse interventions within OECD countries needs further evaluation. The significant heterogeneity (>10 times) in the rates at which individual POP procedures are performed indicates a lack of uniformity in the delivery of care to women with POP and demands the development of uniform guidelines for the surgical management of prolapse. In contrast, the midurethral slings were the standard female continence surgery performed throughout OECD countries in 2012.

Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and bladder function.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim was to determine the impact of pelvic organ prolapse surgery on bladder function. METHODS: Every 4 years, and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-langauage scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews), level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies and level 4 case reports. The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. Grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. Grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. Grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence" from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. Grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi. RESULTS: Continent women undergoing anterior compartment prolapse surgery have a lower rate of de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after anterior repair than armed mesh procedures (grade A). Data are conflicting on whether colposuspension should be performed prophylactically in continent women undergoing sacral colpopexy (grade C). No clear conclusion can be made regarding the management of continent women undergoing prolapse surgery without occult SUI. In continent women undergoing POP surgery with occult SUI the addition of continence surgery reduces the rate of postoperative SUI (grade A). In women with prolapse and SUI symptoms prolapse procedures alone (transobturator mesh and anterior repair) are associated with low success rates for SUI. Concomitant continence procedures reduce the risk of postoperative SUI (grade B). Preoperative bladder overactivity may resolve in 40% undergoing POP surgery and de novo bladder overactivity occurs in 12%. No valid conclusions regarding voiding dysfunction following POP surgery can be drawn from the available data. CONCLUSION: SUI and occult stress urinary incontinence should be treated at the time of prolapse surgery.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with the prolapse. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of the many different surgeries used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, healthcare-related bibliographic databases, handsearched conference proceedings (searched 20 August 2012), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two review authors. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-six randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 5954 women. For upper vaginal prolapse (uterine or vault) abdominal sacral colpopexy was associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse on examination and painful intercourse than with vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. In single studies the sacral colpopexy had a higher success rate on examination and lower reoperation rate than high vaginal uterosacral suspension and transvaginal polypropylene mesh.Twenty-one trials compared a variety of surgical procedures for anterior compartment prolapse (cystocele). Ten compared native tissue repair with graft (absorbable and permanent mesh, biological grafts) repair for anterior compartment prolapse. Native tissue anterior repair was associated with more recurrent anterior compartment prolapse than when supplemented with a polyglactin (absorbable) mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.01), however there was no difference in post-operative awareness of prolapse after absorbable mesh (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.81) or a biological graft (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.30). Data on morbidity and other clinical outcomes were lacking. Standard anterior repair was associated with more anterior compartment prolapse on examination than for any polypropylene (permanent) mesh repair (RR 3.15, 95% CI 2.50 to 3.96). Awareness of prolapse was also higher after the anterior repair as compared to polypropylene mesh repair (28% versus 18%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.07). However, the reoperation rate for prolapse was similar at 14/459 (3%) after the native tissue repair compared to 6/470 (1.3%) (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.10) after the anterior polypropylene mesh repair and no differences in quality of life data or de novo dyspareunia were identified. Blood loss (MD 64 ml, 95% CI 48 to 81), operating time (MD 19 min, 95% CI 16 to 21), recurrences in apical or posterior compartment (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4) and de novo stress urinary incontinence (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.1) were significantly higher with transobturator meshes than for native tissue anterior repair. Mesh erosions were reported in 11.4% (64/563), with surgical interventions being performed in 6.8% (32/470).Data from three trials compared native tissue repairs with a variety of total, anterior, or posterior polypropylene kit meshes for vaginal prolapse in multiple compartments. While no difference in awareness of prolapse was able to be identified between the groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.7) the recurrence rate on examination was higher in the native tissue repair group compared to the transvaginal polypropylene mesh group (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1). The mesh erosion rate was 35/194 (18%), and 18/194 (9%) underwent surgical correction for mesh erosion. The reoperation rate after transvaginal polypropylene mesh repair of 22/194 (11%) was higher than after the native tissue repair (7/189, 3.7%) (RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 7.3).Data from three trials compared posterior vaginal repair and transanal repair for the treatment of posterior compartment prolapse (rectocele). The posterior vaginal repair had fewer recurrent prolapse symptoms (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.0) and lower recurrence on examination (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) and on defecography (MD -1.2 cm, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.3).Sixteen trials included significant data on bladder outcomes following a variety of prolapse surgeries. Women undergoing prolapse surgery may have benefited from having continence surgery performed concomitantly, especially if they had stress urinary incontinence (RR 7.4, 95% CI 4.0 to 14) or if they were continent and had occult stress urinary incontinence demonstrated pre-operatively (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 6.6). Following prolapse surgery, 12% of women developed de novo symptoms of bladder overactivity and 9% de novo voiding dysfunction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sacral colpopexy has superior outcomes to a variety of vaginal procedures including sacrospinous colpopexy, uterosacral colpopexy and transvaginal mesh. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living, and increased cost of the abdominal approach.The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduces the risk of recurrent anterior wall prolapse on examination. Anterior vaginal polypropylene mesh also reduces awareness of prolapse, however these benefits must be weighted against increased operating time, blood loss, rate of apical or posterior compartment prolapse, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation rate for mesh exposures associated with the use of polypropylene mesh.Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectocele in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The evidence is not supportive of any grafts at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Adequately powered randomised, controlled clinical trials with blinding of assessors are urgently needed on a wide variety of issues, and they particularly need to include women's perceptions of prolapse symptoms. Following the withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market, the generalisability of the findings, especially relating to anterior compartment transvaginal mesh, should be interpreted with caution.

A patient-reported outcome measure to identify occurrence and distress of post-surgery symptoms of WOMen with vulvAr Neoplasia (WOMAN-PRO) - a cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to describe the (a) symptom experience of women with vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia and vulvar cancer (vulvar neoplasia) during the first week after hospital discharge, and (b) associations between age, type of disease, stage of disease, the extent of surgical treatment and symptom experience. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in eight hospitals in Germany and Switzerland (Clinical Trial ID: NCT01300663). Symptom experience after surgical treatment in women with vulvar neoplasia was measured with our newly developed WOMAN-PRO instrument. Outpatients (n=65) rated 31 items. We used descriptive statistics and regression analysis. RESULTS: The average number of symptoms reported per patient was 20.2 (SD 5.77) with a range of 5 to 31 symptoms. The three most prevalent wound-related symptoms were 'swelling' (n=56), 'drainage' (n=54) and 'pain' (n=52). The three most prevalent difficulties in daily life were 'sitting' (n=63), 'wearing clothes' (n=56) and 'carrying out my daily activities' (n=51). 'Tiredness' (n=62), 'insecurity' (n=54) and 'feeling that my body has changed' (n=50) were the three most prevalent psychosocial symptoms/issues. The most distressing symptoms were 'sitting' (Mean 2.03, SD 0.88), 'open spot (e.g. opening of skin or suture)' (Mean 1.91, SD 0.93), and 'carrying out my daily activities' (Mean 1.86, SD 0.87), which were on average reported as 'quite a bit' distressing. Negative associations were found between psychosocial symptom experience and age. CONCLUSIONS: WOMAN-PRO data showed a high symptom prevalence and distress, call for a comprehensive symptom assessment, and may allow identification of relevant areas in symptom management.

Selection of patients in whom vaginal graft use may be appropriate. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA Grafts Roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The recent rapid and widespread adoption of the use of mesh, and mesh-based surgical kits for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery has occurred largely unchecked, and is now being subjected to critical analysis and re-evaluation. METHODS: There have been multiple driving forces for this phenomenon, including aggressive marketing by surgical device manufacturing companies, contagious hype among pelvic surgeons and regulatory processes which facilitated relatively rapid marketing of new devices. RESULTS: Patient-related factors such as indications for mesh use, expected risks and benefits relative to mesh implantation, and appropriately selected outcome measures have been slow to be defined. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript reviews the currently available literature in the use of grafts and mesh in POP surgery with a focus on identifying situations where graft use may be appropriate for an individual patient. It also identifies specific clinical situations where mesh use may not be recommended.