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.

Impact of sacrocolpopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse on voiding dysfunction and uroflowmetry parameters: a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Voiding difficulties in the context of pelvic organ prolapse are often neglected or underestimated. To date, there are heterogeneous data available on the outcome of a surgical correction of pelvic organ prolapse and the impact on concomitant voiding dysfunction. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy would resolve preoperative voiding dysfunction and the impact on objective uroflowmetry parameters. METHODS: Data from 103 women undergoing sacrocolpopexy for prolapse stage ≥ II with concurrent objective and/or subjective voiding dysfunction were prospectively evaluated. All women underwent full urogynecological examination, and completed a validated questionnaire pre- and postoperatively. Objective uroflowmetry parameters and subjective outcome data regarding voiding functions were compared pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: All points of the POP-Q system improved significantly pre- to postoperatively (p < 0.001). Preoperatively, 42 of 103 women showed a postvoid residual ≥ 100 ml, whereas only six women had a relevant postvoid residual postoperatively. In total, the postoperative postvoid residual in all women decreased significantly (p < 0.001). Voiding time decreased significantly postoperatively (p < 0.001) with no significant change in the voided volume (p = 0.352). The maximum flow rate increased postoperatively, reaching no statistically significant change (p = 0.132). Subjective outcome measurements (weak or prolonged stream, incomplete bladder emptying, and straining to void) improved significantly (p < 0.001 for all the questions). CONCLUSION: Our prospective study demonstrates that sacrocolpopexy to correct pelvic organ prolapse can successfully resolve voiding dysfunction, as both objective and subjective parameters improved significantly after surgery.

Inactivation of CREBBP expands the germinal center B cell compartment, down-regulates MHCII expression and promotes DLBCL growth.

The genes encoding the histone acetyl-transferases (HATs) CREB binding protein (CREBBP) and EP300 are recurrently mutated in the activated B cell-like and germinal center (GC) B cell-like subtypes of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Here, we introduced a patient mutation into a human DLBCL cell line using CRISPR and deleted Crebbp and Ep300 in the GC B cell compartment of mice. CREBBP-mutant DLBCL clones exhibited reduced histone H3 acetylation, expressed significantly less MHCII, and grew faster than wild-type clones in s.c. and orthotopic xenograft models. Mice lacking Crebbp in GC B cells exhibited hyperproliferation of their GC compartment upon immunization, had reduced MHCII surface expression on GC cells, and developed accelerated MYC-driven lymphomas. Ep300 inactivation reproduced some, but not all, consequences of Crebbp inactivation. MHCII deficiency phenocopied the effects of CREBBP loss in spontaneous and serial transplantation models of MYC-driven lymphomagenesis, supporting the idea that the mutational inactivation of CREBBP promotes immune evasion. Indeed, the depletion of CD4+ T cells greatly facilitated the engraftment of lymphoma cells in serial transplantation models. In summary, we provide evidence that both HATs are bona fide tumor suppressors that control MHCII expression and promote tumor immune control; mutational inactivation of CREBBP, but not of EP300, has additional cell-intrinsic engraftment and growth-promoting effects.

The hematopoietic oncoprotein FOXP1 promotes tumor cell survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma by repressing S1PR2 signaling.

Aberrant expression of the oncogenic transcription factor forkhead box protein 1 (FOXP1) is a common feature of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). We have combined chromatin immunoprecipitation and gene expression profiling after FOXP1 depletion with functional screening to identify targets of FOXP1 contributing to tumor cell survival. We find that the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 2 (S1PR2) is repressed by FOXP1 in activated B-cell (ABC) and germinal center B-cell (GCB) DLBCL cell lines with aberrantly high FOXP1 levels; S1PR2 expression is further inversely correlated with FOXP1 expression in 3 patient cohorts. Ectopic expression of wild-type S1PR2, but not a point mutant incapable of activating downstream signaling pathways, induces apoptosis in DLBCL cells and restricts tumor growth in subcutaneous and orthotopic models of the disease. The proapoptotic effects of S1PR2 are phenocopied by ectopic expression of the small G protein Gα13 but are independent of AKT signaling. We further show that low S1PR2 expression is a strong negative prognosticator of patient survival, alone and especially in combination with high FOXP1 expression. The S1PR2 locus has previously been demonstrated to be recurrently mutated in GCB DLBCL; the transcriptional silencing of S1PR2 by FOXP1 represents an alternative mechanism leading to inactivation of this important hematopoietic tumor suppressor.

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.

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.

Vulvar lichen sclerosus in women is associated with lower urinary tract symptoms.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Lichen sclerosus (LS) is thought to be primarily a disease of postmenopausal women. Little is reported about lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in association with LS. The aims of this study were to evaluate the odds of having LS-associated LUTS and to identify the predominant type of LS-associated bladder dysfunction. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study with two cohorts investigating the association between LS and LUTS and the predominant type of LS-associated bladder dysfunction. RESULTS: The odds of LUTS in women with LS were more than four times higher than in women without LS (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.6-8.0; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of LUTS between women who experienced the first LS symptoms before and after the age of 50 years (36% and 53%, respectively, p = 0.14), or in the occurrence of the different types of LUTS between women with and without LS (p = 0.3). The most common type of LUTS was overactive bladder (OAB) in both women with LS (67.3%) and without LS (60%). The most prevalent type of LS-associated LUTS was OAB. CONCLUSIONS: The odds of developing LUTS (self-reported) are four times higher in women with LS than in those without. The predominant type of LUTS in women with and without LS is OAB.

Functional outcome after laparoscopic nerve-sparing sacrocolpopexy: a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: To date sacrocolpopexy is regarded as the reference standard treatment for primarily apical compartment prolapse and multicompartment prolapse. Most bladder and bowel dysfunction improves postoperatively after sacrocolpopexy; however, de novo bowel or de novo bladder dysfunction can occur. The inferior hypogastric nerve is commonly known among pelvic surgeons. However, the inferior hypogastric nerve and its fine fibers are difficult to identify; iatrogenic lesion is commonly tolerated although this can lead to bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction. This study was performed to assess the functional outcome after nerve-sparing sacrocolpopexy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2014 to 2016 all women undergoing a laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical or multicompartment prolapse stage >2 were included in this prospective study. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy was performed using the nerve-sparing approach. Objective outcome was assessed by preoperative and postoperative POP-Q changes. De novo bladder and de novo bowel dysfunction were subjectively and objectively evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 137 women were included. Significant objective improvement for point Aa and C (p < 0.0001) preoperatively to postoperatively was seen. The posterior compartment remained unchanged with point Ba -2. De novo overactive bladder and de novo bladder outlet obstruction with elevated postresidual volume were seen for both in 0.7% (1/137). De novo stress urinary incontinence was seen in 0.7% (5/137). De novo constipation was seen in 5%, bowel incontinence in 0% and resolution of pre-existing obstipation in 14.5%. De novo laxative use (9%) in the first 12 weeks was the most common postoperative problem. CONCLUSION: We could demonstrate that when a nerve-sparing technique is applied for sacrocolpopexy low de novo bladder (18%) and de novo bowel dysfunction can be seen.

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.

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.

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.

Back to "once a caesarean: always a caesarean"? A trend analysis in Switzerland.

PURPOSE: Caesarean sections (CS) have significantly increased worldwide and a previous CS is nowadays an important and increasingly reported indication to perform a repeat CS. There is a paucity of information in Switzerland on the incidence of repeat CS after previous CS and relationship between the rates of vaginal birth after CS (VBAC). The aim of this study was to analyse the actual trend in VBAC in Switzerland. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study to analyse the proportion of VBAC among all pregnant women with previous sections which give birth during two time periods (group 1:1998/1999 vs. group 2:2004/2005) in our tertiary care referral hospital and in the annual statistics of Swiss Women's Hospitals (ASF-Statistics). In addition, the proportion of induction of labour after a previous caesarean and its success was analysed. RESULTS: In both cohorts studied, we found a significant decrease of vaginal births (p < 0.05) and a significant increase of primary elective repeat caesarean section (p < 0.05) from the first to the second time period, while there was a decrease of secondary repeat caesarean sections. The prevalence of labour induction did not decrease. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that vaginal birth after a prior caesarean section has decreased over time in Switzerland. There was no significant change in labour induction during the study period. While this trend might reflect an increasing demand for safety in pregnancy and childbirth, it concomitantly increases maternal risks of further pregnancies, and women need to be appropriately informed about long-term risks.

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.

Analysis of the Clinical Value of Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy to Support the Posterior Compartment in Women with Multicompartment Prolapse Including Rectocele.

Background/Objectives: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is regarded as the gold standard treatment for apical or multicompartment prolapse, predominantly with anterior compartment descent. However, the optimal surgical approach for concurrent rectocele is still debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of nerve-sparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in managing multicompartment prolapse with concurrent rectocele (≥stage II), analyzing the anatomical outcomes, the necessity for concomitant or subsequent posterior repair, and the impact on bowel function in women undergoing surgery. Methods: Data from all women who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without posterior repair between 01/2017 and 07/2022 for symptomatic multicompartment prolapse, including apical and posterior compartment descent ≥ stage II, were retrospectively evaluated. All women underwent a standardized urogynecological examination, including assessment of genital prolapse using the POP-Q quantification system, and completed the German-validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire before and after surgery (6-12 weeks). Preoperative anatomic support and bowel symptoms were compared with postoperative values. Results: In total, 112 women met the criteria for surgical correction. The majority (87%) had stage II posterior descent, with only 10% undergoing concurrent posterior repair during laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Significant (p < 0.001) objective improvement was seen for all compartments post- compared with preoperatively (Ba: 0 (-1/2) vs. -3 (-3/-2), C: -1 (-2/0) vs. -8 (-12/-7), Bp: 0 (-1/0) vs. -3 (-2/-2); (median (25%/75% quartiles)). Subsequent surgery for persistent rectocele and/or stool outlet symptoms was required in 4% of cases. Most bowel-specific questions in the German-validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire showed significant improvement (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Nerve-sparing sacrocolpopexy alone appears to be a suitable surgical approach to correct multicompartment prolapse, including a rectocele ≥ stage II, and results in a reduction of objective signs and symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse.

Recurrent Pelvic Organ Prolapse after Sacrocolpopexy-A Surgical Challenge.

Background: Repeat sacrocolpopexy (reSCP) for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a rare and complex condition with little understanding of how to manage. Most authors recommend complete reSCP regardless of the underlying cause of the failure. This retrospective cohort study presents our management workflow and how to systematically approach this challenging situation. Methods: From 2017 to 2021, we analyzed all women undergoing surgery for recurrent POP after sacrocolpopexy at our tertiary referral hospital at the department of urogynecology. Preoperatively, all women underwent a structured work-up consisting of answering the validated German female pelvic floor questionnaires, a clinical examination utilizing the POP-Q staging system according to the International Continence Society (ICS), and a pelvic floor ultrasound. The surgical management was based on the preoperative findings and was adapted individually during surgery if indicated according to the estimated underlying problem for recurrence. Results: In total, 377 women underwent a primary laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, ten women presented with a symptomatic recurrent prolapse requiring further surgical intervention. A reSCP was performed in eight women, including two with additional laparoscopic paravaginal repair to correct the displaced mesh placement at initial surgery. A vaginal correction was indicated in two women with an isolated posterior compartment prolapse. The analysis demonstrates that reSCP has a low intraoperative complication rate and high subjective and objective success rates. Conclusions: We could demonstrate that individualized reSCP after initial SCP is a challenging yet feasible and safe treatment option, but there may be suitable alternatives. If women undergo pre- and intraoperative standardized problem-oriented examinations, we can often identify the cause of the recurrent prolapse. Tailored surgery must be subsequently performed.

Do PET-positive supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes predict overall survival or the success of primary surgery in patients with advanced ovarian cancer?

OBJECTIVES: Compared to conventional computed tomography (CT), fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) detects higher rates of lymph node and distant metastases in patients with ovarian cancer. However, FDG-PET/CT is not routinely performed during preoperative work-up. Therefore, we investigated the prognostic value of preoperative FDG-PET/CT in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and its predictive value for surgical resection in patients with no residual disease. The potential significance of PET-positive supradiaphragmatic lymph nodes (SDLNs) for these parameters was evaluated. METHODS: All patients with FIGO IIA-IVB EOC diagnosed between March 2014 and January 2021 at our certified gynaecological cancer centre, who underwent FDG PET/CT before primary surgery were retrospectively included. RESULTS: Fifty-three consecutive patients were included in the study. Eighteen (34 %) patients had PET-positive SDLNs. We could not demonstrate a significant correlation between PET-positive SDLNs and median overall survival (OS; SDLN-positive: 58.76 months, SDLN-negative: 60.76 months; p = 0.137) or intra- or perioperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: FDG PET/CT has a higher detection rate for SDLNs in patients with ovarian cancer than CT has, as described in the literature. Moreover, PET-positive SDLNs failed to predict intraoperative outcomes or overall survival.

Vaginal invagination: definition, clinical presentation and surgical management.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this observational study is to define vaginal invagination identified at vaginal prolapse surgery and to report the prevalence and risk factors for its development. METHODS: All women undergoing vaginal prolapse surgery between January and December 2010 were prospectively evaluated intraoperatively for invagination of the vagina. The preoperative details and characteristics of the invagination were recorded and the area of vaginal mucosa released was quantified in square centimetres. Vaginal topography was evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system. RESULTS: Intraoperative assessment demonstrated that vaginal invagination occurred in 8 % (25/295) and was characterized by a tight, fixed and tethered portion of vaginal mucosa at the vault which was bilateral in 14 (56 %) women. Prior gynaecological surgery with hysterectomy being the most common surgery and vaginal route the most frequent approach were identified as overall risk factors. The gain (mean ± SD) of vaginal mucosa after releasing entrapped tissue was 3.5 ± 0.63 cm(2). CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal invagination is diagnosed intraoperatively as a fixed and tight area of vaginal mucosa at the vault. The identification and release of the invaginated vagina ensures a safer access to the pelvic sidewall and increases vaginal mucosal area.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse after failed transvaginal polypropylene mesh surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A prospective case series to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the surgical management of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) after transvaginal polypropylene mesh prolapse surgery. METHODS: Between January and December 2010, women with post-hysterectomy recurrent prolapse (≥ stage 2 POP-Q) after transvaginal polypropylene mesh prolapse surgery were included. Perioperative morbidity and short-term complications were recorded and evaluated. Surgical outcomes were objectively assessed utilising the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the validated, condition-specific Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) at 12 months. RESULTS: All 16 women in this study had undergone surgery with trocar-guided transvaginal polypropylene mesh kits. In 75% the recurrent prolapse affected the compartment of prior mesh surgery with the anterior (81%) and apical (75%) compartment prolapse predominating. At a mean follow-up of 12 months, all women had resolution of awareness of prolapse, had < stage 2 POP-Q on examination and high levels of satisfaction on PGI-I post surgery. There were no serious peri- or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for recurrent prolapse after failed transvaginal mesh surgery is feasible and safe. Further widespread evaluation is required.