The Treatment of Post-hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Int Urogynecol J

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Urology

Date 2017 Oct 18

PMID 29038834

Citations 22

Authors

Anne-Lotte W M Coolen

Bich Ngoc Bui

Viviane Dietz

Rui Wang

Aafke P A van Montfoort

Ben Willem J Mol

Jan-Paul W R Roovers

Marlies Y Bongers

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction And Hypothesis: The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) has been investigated in several randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but a systematic review of the topic is still lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of treatments for VVP.

Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on the treatment of VVP found in PubMed and Embase. Reference lists of identified relevant articles were checked for additional articles. A network plot was constructed to illustrate the geometry of the network of the treatments included. Only RCTs reporting on the treatment of VVP were eligible, conditional on a minimum of 30 participants with VVP and a follow-up of at least 6 months.

Results: Nine RCTs reporting 846 women (ranging from 95 to 168 women) met the inclusion criteria. All surgical techniques were associated with good subjective results, and without differences between the compared technique, with the exception of the comparison of vaginal mesh (VM) vs laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC). LSC is associated with a higher satisfaction rate. The anatomical results of the sacrocolpopexy (laparoscopic, robotic [RSC]. and abdominal [ASC]) are the best (62-91%), followed by the VM. However, the ranges of the anatomical outcome of VM were wide (43-97%). The poorest results are described for the sacrospinal fixation (SSF; 35-81%), which also correlates with the higher reoperation rate for pelvic organ prolapse (POP; 5-9%). The highest percentage of complications were reported after ASC (2-19%), VM (6-29%), and RSC (54%). Mesh exposure was seen most often after VM (8-21%). The rate of reoperations carried out because of complications, recurrence prolapse, and incontinence of VM was 13-22%. Overall, sacrocolpopexy reported the best results at follow-up, with an outlier of one trial reporting the highest reoperation rate for POP (11%). The results of the RSC are too small to make any conclusion, but LSC seems to be preferable to ASC.

Conclusions: A comparison of techniques was difficult because of heterogeneity; therefore, a network meta-analysis was not possible. All techniques have proved to be effective. The reported differences between the techniques were negligible. Therefore, a standard treatment for VVP could not be given according to this review.

Citing Articles

Robotic Lateral Pelvic Organ Prolapse Suspension of Multicompartment Vaginal Prolapse.

Pellegrino A, Villa M, Cesana M, Perrone A, Malvasi A, Loizzi V Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023; 12(1):44-45.

PMID: 37025440 PMC: 10071865. DOI: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_97_21.

The impact of diabetes mellitus on pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Eckhardt S, Laus K, DeAndrade S, Lee J, Nguyen J Int Urogynecol J. 2023; 34(8):1859-1866.

PMID: 36780019 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-023-05455-y.

Mid-term efficacy of surgical treatments for post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a retrospective study.

Zhang Y, Wang W, Lu Y, Shen W, Niu K Gland Surg. 2022; 11(6):992-1002.

PMID: 35800747 PMC: 9253193. DOI: 10.21037/gs-22-261.

Robot-assisted sacro(hystero)colpopexy with anterior and posterior mesh placement: impact on lower bowel tract function and clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up.

Li Marzi V, Morselli S, Di Maida F, Musco S, Gemma L, Bracco F Ther Adv Urol. 2022; 14:17562872221090884.

PMID: 35493316 PMC: 9039451. DOI: 10.1177/17562872221090884.

Vaginal vault prolapse and recurrent surgery: A nationwide observational cohort study.

Brunes M, Ek M, Drca A, Soderberg M, Bergman I, Warnqvist A Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022; 101(5):542-549.

PMID: 35238023 PMC: 9564691. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14341.

References

Glazener C, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper K, Freeman R . Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2016; 389(10067):381-392. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31596-3. View

Barber M, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler 2nd T, Schaffer J, Chen Z . Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(3):600-609. PMC: 2904469. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae. View

Dallenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Jacob S, Dubuisson J, Boulvain M . Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008; 19(12):1623-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-008-0718-4. View

Woodruff A, C Roth C, Winters J . Abdominal sacral colpopexy: surgical pearls and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep. 2007; 8(5):399-404. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-007-0038-0. View

Bump R, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker L, DeLancey J, Klarskov P . The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175(1):10-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0. View

Coolen A, van Oudheusden A, Mol B, van Eijndhoven H, Roovers J, Bongers M . Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28(10):1469-1479. PMC: 5606943. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5. View

Stanford E, Moore R, Roovers J, VanDrie D, Giudice T, Lukban J . Elevate and Uterine Preservation: Two-Year Results. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015; 21(4):205-10. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000180. View

Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J . Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 2:CD012079. PMC: 6489145. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012079. View

Uzoma A, Farag K . Vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2009; 2009:275621. PMC: 2778877. DOI: 10.1155/2009/275621. View

10.

Maher C, Feiner B, DeCuyper E, Nichlos C, Hickey K, ORourke P . Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204(4):360.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016. View

11.

Halaska M, Maxova K, Sottner O, Svabik K, Mlcoch M, Kolarik D . A multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing sacrospinous fixation and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207(4):301.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.016. View

12.

Maher C, Qatawneh A, Dwyer P, Carey M, Cornish A, Schluter P . Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190(1):20-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.031. View

13.

Tate S, Blackwell L, Lorenz D, Steptoe M, Culligan P . Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 22(2):137-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1249-3. View

14.

Haylen B, Maher C, Barber M, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A . An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27(2):165-94. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1. View

15.

Altman D, Vayrynen T, Ellstrom Engh M, Axelsen S, Falconer C . Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(19):1826-36. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1009521. View

16.

Detollenaere R, den Boon J, Vierhout M, van Eijndhoven H . [Uterus preserving surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy in treatment of uterine descent: a systematic review]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2011; 155(42):A3623. View

17.

Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, Jenkinson D, Fraser C, Bain C . Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21(11):1413-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1156-7. View

18.

Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, Ioannidis J . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2700. PMC: 2714672. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. View

19.

Paraiso M, Jelovsek J, Frick A, Chen C, Barber M . Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118(5):1005-1013. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231537c. View

20.

Culligan P, Blackwell L, Goldsmith L, Graham C, Rogers A, Heit M . A randomized controlled trial comparing fascia lata and synthetic mesh for sacral colpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106(1):29-37. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000165824.62167.c1. View