Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT).

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

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.

BACKGROUND: New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon. SETTING: UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year). RESULTS: Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach. FUTURE WORK: Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

About 1 in 10 women has pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, and around three of these women require a further operation. The aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate surgery for two different types of POP found in women: (1) when the uterus itself has come down ­ the Uterine trial ­ and (2) when a previous hysterectomy has resulted in the top of the vagina coming down ­ the Vault trial. In the Uterine trial, preserving the uterus was compared with removing it vaginally. In the Vault trial, uplifting and supporting the vault prolapse using an abdominal approach was compared with a vaginal approach. Women were asked about their prolapse and other symptoms affecting their quality of life (QoL). The majority of women reported that their prolapse symptoms and QoL improved after surgery. The women's prolapse was also measured by clinical examination before and 12 months after their operation. All of these results were compared between the different procedures. It was found that all the surgical procedures were successful within the 12-month review period. Abdominal surgery in the Vault trial as well as any that was required in the Uterine trial, was, however, slightly less cost-effective. Serious complications and the need for further prolapse surgery were similar in all groups. A small number of women did require additional surgery for prolapse recurrence or for small mesh exposure when additional or prolapse procedures had involved mesh. Women in both trials will be followed up for at least 6 years to determine longer-term costs and consequences.

Surgical treatments for women with stress urinary incontinence: the ESTER systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence in women is a distressing condition that restricts quality of life and results in a large economic burden to both the NHS and women themselves. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women and explore women's preferences. DESIGN: An evidence synthesis, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) and an economic decision model, with a value-of-information (VOI) analysis. Nine surgical interventions were compared. Previous Cochrane reviews for each were identified and updated to include additional studies. Systematic review methods were applied. The outcomes of interest were 'cure' and 'improvement'. Both a pairwise and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted for all available surgical comparisons. A DCE was undertaken to assess the preferences of women for treatment outcomes. An economic model assessed the cost-effectiveness of alternative surgeries and a VOI analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Data from 175 studies were included in the effectiveness review. The majority of included studies were rated as being at high or unclear risk of bias across all risk-of-bias domains. The NMA, which included 120 studies that reported data on 'cure' or 'improvement', showed that retropubic mid-urethral sling (MUS), transobturator MUS, traditional sling and open colposuspension were more effective than other surgical procedures for both primary outcomes. The results for other interventions were variable. In general, rate of tape and mesh exposure was higher after transobturator MUS than after retropubic MUS or single-incision sling, whereas the rate of tape or mesh erosion/extrusion was similar between transobturator MUS and retropubic MUS. The results of the DCE, in which 789 women completed an anonymous online questionnaire, indicate that women tend to prefer surgical treatments associated with no pain or mild chronic pain and shorter length of hospital stay as well as those treatments that have a smaller risk for urinary symptoms to reoccur after surgery. The cost-effectiveness results suggest that, over a lifetime, retropubic MUS is, on average, the least costly and most effective surgery. However, the high level of uncertainty makes robust estimates difficult to ascertain. The VOI analysis highlighted that further research around the incidence rates of complications would be of most value. LIMITATIONS: Overall, the quality of the clinical evidence was low, with limited data available for the assessment of complications. Furthermore, there is a lack of robust evidence and significant uncertainty around some parameters in the economic modelling. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive assessment of published evidence for the treatment of SUI. There is some evidence that retropubic MUS, transobturator MUS and traditional sling are effective in the short to medium term and that retropubic MUS is cost-effective in the medium to long term. The VOI analysis highlights the value of further research to reduce the uncertainty around the incidence rates of complications. There is a need to obtain robust clinical data in future work, particularly around long-term complication rates. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016049339. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Urinary incontinence, defined as involuntary leakage of urine, is a common condition that varies in type and severity and can have a huge impact on the quality of life of women. The aim of this project was to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of nine surgical operations for stress urinary incontinence in women and assess the need for further research. Women's preferences for surgery were also explored. Currently there is no agreement among decision-makers, doctors and patients about which of the available surgical operations is best. Based on previous Cochrane reviews, the effects and safety of each operation were systematically reviewed and analysed. Their cost-effectiveness and the value of conducting further research were also evaluated. To better understand the preference of women, an online survey containing a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Finally, patient representatives were consulted to help us to understand the consequences of the findings from a patient's perspective. The evidence on surgical operations was predominantly short to medium term (up to 12 months). This analysis found that the quality of the evidence varied, with the majority of trials being subject to high or unclear risk of bias, making the conclusions that can be drawn less robust. The findings of the clinical evidence review suggest that retropubic sling procedures, transobturator sling procedures and traditional sling procedures are more effective than other surgical procedures for both 'cure' and 'improvement' of stress urinary incontinence. The results of the economic analyses support these findings, suggesting that retropubic mid-urethral sling is the most cost-effective surgical operation. However, data on complications were lacking, limiting any strong conclusions. The results suggest that there is value in undertaking further research to reduce the uncertainty around the medium- to long-term complications of all surgical treatments and this was reflected in patients' views.

Surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for women with stress urinary incontinence. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. METHODS: Identification of relevant randomised controlled trials from Cochrane reviews and the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched May 2017), which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Medline In-Process, Medline Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP. The reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. Primary outcomes were "cure" and "improvement" at 12 months, analysed by means of network meta-analyses, with results presented as the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Adverse events were analysed using pairwise meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The quality of evidence for network meta-analysis was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: 175 randomised controlled trials assessing a total of 21 598 women were included. Most studies had high or unclear risk across all risk of bias domains. Network meta-analyses were based on data from 105 trials that reported cure and 120 trials that reported improvement of incontinence symptoms. Results showed that the interventions with highest cure rates were traditional sling, retropubic midurethral sling (MUS), open colposuspension, and transobturator MUS, with rankings of 89.4%, 89.1%, 76.7%, and 64.1%, respectively. Compared with retropubic MUS, the odds ratio of cure for traditional sling was 1.06 (95% credible interval 0.62 to 1.85), for open colposuspension was 0.85 (0.54 to 1.33), and for transobtrurator MUS was 0.74 (0.59 to 0.92). Women were also more likely to experience an improvement in their incontinence symptoms after receiving retropubic MUS or transobturator MUS compared with other surgical procedures. In particular, compared with retropubic MUS, the odds ratio of improvement for transobturator MUS was 0.76 (95% credible interval 0.59 to 0.98), for traditional sling was 0.69 (0.39 to 1.26), and for open colposuspension was 0.65 (0.41 to 1.02). Quality of evidence was moderate for retropubic MUS versus transobturator MUS and low or very low for retropubic MUS versus the other two interventions. Data on adverse events were available mainly for mesh procedures, indicating a higher rate of repeat surgery and groin pain but a lower rate of suprapubic pain, vascular complications, bladder or urethral perforation, and voiding difficulties after transobturator MUS compared with retropubic MUS. Data on adverse events for non-MUS procedures were sparse and showed wide confidence intervals. Long term data were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Retropubic MUS, transobturator MUS, traditional sling, and open colposuspension are more effective than other procedures for stress urinary incontinence in the short to medium term. Data on long term effectiveness and adverse events are, however, limited, especially around the comparative adverse events profiles of MUS and non-MUS procedures. A better understanding of complications after surgery for stress urinary incontinence is imperative. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016049339.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study - results from the PROSPECT Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of mesh in prolapse surgery is controversial, leading to a number of enquiries into its safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To compare synthetic non-absorbable mesh inlay, biological graft and mesh kit with a standard repair in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse effects, quality of life (QoL), costs and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort (CC) study. Allocation was by a remote web-based randomisation system in a 1 :1 : 1 ratio (Primary trial) or 1 : 1 : 2 ratio (Secondary trial), and was minimised on age, type of prolapse repair planned, need for a concomitant continence procedure, need for a concomitant upper vaginal prolapse procedure and surgeon. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to randomisation; participants were unblinded if they requested the information. Surgeons were not blinded to allocated procedure. SETTING: Thirty-five UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Primary study: 2474 women in the analysis (including 1348 randomised) having primary anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. Secondary study: 398 in the analysis (including 154 randomised) having repeat anterior or posterior prolapse surgery. CC3: 215 women having either uterine or vault prolapse repair. INTERVENTIONS: Anterior or posterior repair alone, or with mesh inlay, biological graft or mesh kit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prolapse symptoms [Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS)]; prolapse-specific QoL; cost-effectiveness [incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)]. RESULTS: Primary trials: adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, mean POP-SS was similar for each comparison {standard 5.4 [standard deviation (SD) 5.5] vs. mesh 5.5 (SD 5.1), mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to 0.71; standard 5.5 (SD 5.6) vs. graft 5.6 (SD 5.6), MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.63}. Serious non-mesh adverse effects rates were similar between the groups in year 1 [standard 7.2% vs. mesh 7.8%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.72; standard 6.3% vs. graft 9.8%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59]. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in any other outcome measure. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 2 of 430 (0.5%) for standard repair (trial 1), 46 of 435 (10.6%) for mesh inlay and 2 of 368 (0.5%) for biological graft. The CC findings were comparable. Incremental costs were £363 (95% CI -£32 to £758) and £565 (95% CI £180 to £950) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. Incremental QALYs were 0.071 (95% CI -0.004 to 0.145) and 0.039 (95% CI -0.041 to 0.120) for mesh and graft vs. standard, respectively. A Markov decision model extrapolating trial results over 5 years showed standard repair had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness, but results were surrounded by considerable uncertainty. Secondary trials: there were no statistically significant differences between the randomised groups in any outcome measure, but the sample size was too small to be conclusive. The cumulative mesh complication rates over 2 years were 7 of 52 (13.5%) for mesh inlay and 4 of 46 (8.7%) for mesh kit, with no mesh exposures for standard repair. CONCLUSIONS: In women who were having primary repairs, there was evidence of no benefit from the use of mesh inlay or biological graft compared with standard repair in terms of efficacy, QoL or adverse effects (other than mesh complications) in the short term. The Secondary trials were too small to provide conclusive results. LIMITATIONS: Women in the Primary trials included some with a previous repair in another compartment. Follow-up is vital to identify any long-term potential benefits and serious adverse effects. FUTURE WORK: Long-term follow-up to at least 6 years after surgery is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. TRIAI REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60695184. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 95. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One in three women who have a prolapse operation will go on to have another operation, though not necessarily in the same compartment. Surgery can result in greater impairment of quality of life than the original prolapse itself (such as the development of new-onset urinary incontinence, or prolapse at a different site). Anterior and posterior prolapse surgery is most common (90 % of operations), but around 43 % of women also have a uterine (34 %) or vault (9 %) procedure at the same time. There is not enough evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to guide management of vault or uterine prolapse. The Vault or Uterine prolapse surgery Evaluation (VUE) study aims to assess the surgical management of upper compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in terms of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and adverse events. METHODS/DESIGN: VUE is two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, RCTs (Uterine Trial and Vault Trial). Eligible for inclusion are women with vault or uterine prolapse: requiring a surgical procedure, suitable for randomisation and willing to be randomised. Randomisation will be computer-allocated separately for each trial, minimised on: requiring concomitant anterior and/or posterior POP surgery or not, concomitant incontinence surgery or not, age (under 60 years or 60 years and older) and surgeon. Participants will be randomly assigned, with equal probability to intervention or control arms in either the Uterine Trial or the Vault Trial. Uterine Trial participants will receive either a vaginal hysterectomy or a uterine preservation procedure. Vault Trial participants will receive either a vaginal sacrospinous fixation or an abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Participants will be followed up by postal questionnaires (6 months post surgery and 12 months post randomisation) and also reviewed in clinic 12 months post surgery. The primary outcome is the participant-reported Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS) at 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: Demonstrating the efficacy of vault and uterine prolapse surgeries is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health care providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN86784244 (assigned 19 October 2012), and the first subject was randomly assigned on 1 May 2013.