Investig Clin Urol.  2019 Nov;60(6):413-424. 10.4111/icu.2019.60.6.413.

Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: Strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Urology, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  • 2Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. ksleedr@skku.edu
  • 3Department of Medical Device Management and Research, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

There are a variety of surgical management strategies to help surgeons repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Surgical treatment for POP includes native tissue repair, augmentation with mesh, and minimally invasive surgeries. Currently, laparoscopic or robotic techniques for POP repair are increasing in popularity and continuing to evolve. The aim of this review is to present an up-to-date review of surgical techniques used for POP repair and to discuss ways to optimize surgical outcomes.

Keyword

Cystocele; Pelvic organ prolapse; Review; Surgical mesh

MeSH Terms

Cystocele
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Pelvic Organ Prolapse*
Surgeons
Surgical Mesh

Cited by  1 articles

Outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy combined with anterior and posterior colporrhaphy for pelvic organ prolapse: a single center retrospective study
Ju Hee Kim, So Young Lee, Hee Dong Chae, Yoon Kyung Shin, Sa Ra Lee, Sung Hoon Kim
Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2022;65(1):74-83.    doi: 10.5468/ogs.21235.


Reference

1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. International Urogynecological Association. International Continence Society. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010; 29:4–20. PMID: 19941278.
Article
2. Handa VL, Garrett E, Hendrix S, Gold E, Robbins J. Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: a longitudinal study of menopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190:27–32. PMID: 14749630.
Article
3. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123:1201–1206. PMID: 24807341.
Article
4. Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192:795–806. PMID: 15746674.
Article
5. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114:600–609. PMID: 19701041.
Article
6. Lee U, Raz S. Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: what is cure? Curr Urol Rep. 2011; 12:62–67. PMID: 21140299.
Article
7. Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111:891–898. PMID: 18378748.
8. Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, Lim J, Leong A, Krause H, et al. Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2009; 116:1380–1386. PMID: 19583714.
Article
9. Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, et al. Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203:235.e1–235.e8. PMID: 20494332.
Article
10. Altman D, Väyrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364:1826–1836. PMID: 21561348.
Article
11. Chmielewski L, Walters MD, Weber AM, Barber MD. Reanalysis of a randomized trial of 3 techniques of anterior colporrhaphy using clinically relevant definitions of success. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205:69.e1–69.e8. PMID: 21545996.
Article
12. Menefee SA, Dyer KY, Lukacz ES, Simsiman AJ, Luber KM, Nguyen JN. Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft-reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118:1337–1344. PMID: 22067717.
13. Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH. Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG. 2011; 118:1518–1527. PMID: 21864325.
Article
14. El-Nazer MA, Gomaa IA, Ismail Madkour WA, Swidan KH, El-Etriby MA. Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a comparative clinical study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286:965–972. PMID: 22648445.
Article
15. de Tayrac R, Cornille A, Eglin G, Guilbaud O, Mansoor A, Alonso S, et al. Comparison between trans-obturator transvaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24:1651–1661. PMID: 23512113.
Article
16. Delroy CA, Castro Rde A, Dias MM, Feldner PC Jr, Bortolini MA, Girão MJ, et al. The use of transvaginal synthetic mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24:1899–1907. PMID: 23632800.
Article
17. Turgal M, Sivaslioglu A, Yildiz A, Dolen I. Anatomical and functional assessment of anterior colporrhaphy versus polypropylene mesh surgery in cystocele treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013; 170:555–558. PMID: 23916584.
Article
18. Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, Kinne I, Jakobsson U, Teleman P. Anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2014; 121:102–110. discussion 110–1.
Article
19. Dos Reis Brandão da Silveira S, Haddad JM, de Jármy-Di Bella ZI, Nastri F, Kawabata MG, da Silva Carramão S, et al. Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26:335–342. PMID: 25199496.
Article
20. Tamanini JT, de Oliveira Souza Castro RC, Tamanini JM, Castro RA, Sartori MG, Girão MJ. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: medium term followup. J Urol. 2015; 193:1298–1304. PMID: 25305357.
Article
21. Dias MM, de A Castro R, Bortolini MA, Delroy CA, Martins PC, Girão MJ, et al. Two-years results of native tissue versus vaginal mesh repair in the treatment of anterior prolapse according to different success criteria: a randomized controlled trial. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; 35:509–514. PMID: 25820682.
Article
22. Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, Kinne I, Jakobsson U, Teleman P. A 3-year follow-up after anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2016; 123:136–142. PMID: 26420345.
Article
23. Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, et al. PROSPECT study group). 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. 2017; 389:381–392. PMID: 28010989.
Article
24. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 11:CD004014. PMID: 27901278.
Article
25. Sung VW, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI, Balk EM, Uhlig K, Lau J, et al. Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group. Graft use in transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112:1131–1142. PMID: 18978116.
Article
26. Feiner B, Jelovsek JE, Maher C. Efficacy and safety of transvaginal mesh kits in the treatment of prolapse of the vaginal apex: a systematic review. BJOG. 2009; 116:15–24.
Article
27. Bako A, Dhar R. Review of synthetic mesh-related complications in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009; 20:103–111. PMID: 18779916.
Article
28. Food and Drug Administration. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. Food and Drug Administration;2011.
29. Skoczylas LC, Turner LC, Wang L, Winger DG, Shepherd JP. Changes in prolapse surgery trends relative to FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25:471–477. PMID: 24081497.
Article
30. NICE Guidance - Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women:management: © NICE (2019) Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management. BJU Int. 2019; 123:777–803. PMID: 31008559.
31. Petri E, Ashok K. Comparison of late complications of retropubic and transobturator slings in stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23:321–325. PMID: 21845508.
Article
32. MacDonald S, Terlecki R, Costantini E, Badlani G. Complications of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: tips for prevention, recognition, and management. Eur Urol Focus. 2016; 2:260–267. PMID: 28723371.
Article
33. Jacquetin B, Fatton B, Rosenthal C, Clavé H, Debodinance P, Hinoul P, et al. Total transvaginal mesh (TVM) technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a 3-year prospective follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21:1455–1462. PMID: 20683579.
Article
34. Bjelic-Radisic V, Aigmueller T, Preyer O, Ralph G, Geiss I, Müller G, et al. Austrian Urogynecology Working Group. Vaginal prolapse surgery with transvaginal mesh: results of the Austrian registry. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25:1047–1052. PMID: 24519644.
Article
35. Song W, Kim TH, Chung JW, Cho WJ, Lee HN, Lee YS, et al. Anatomical and functional outcomes of prolift transvaginal mesh for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2016; 8:159–164. PMID: 27619780.
Article
36. Barski D, Arndt C, Gerullis H, Yang J, Boros M, Otto T, et al. Transvaginal PVDF-mesh for cystocele repair: a cohort study. Int J Surg. 2017; 39:249–254. PMID: 28192248.
Article
37. Aubé M, Guérin M, Rheaume C, Tu LM. Efficacy and patient satisfaction of pelvic organ prolapse reduction using transvaginal mesh: a Canadian perspective. Can Urol Assoc J. 2018; 12:E432–E437. PMID: 29989915.
Article
38. Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191:1533–1538. PMID: 15547521.
Article
39. Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L. Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195:1837–1840. PMID: 17132485.
Article
40. Elliott CS, Yeh J, Comiter CV, Chen B, Sokol ER. The predictive value of a cystocele for concomitant vaginal apical prolapse. J Urol. 2013; 189:200–203. PMID: 23174246.
Article
41. Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, et al. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122:981–987. PMID: 24104778.
42. Liu JS, Nettey O, Vo AX, Hofer MD, Flury SC, Kielb SJ. Prolapse repair with and without apical resuspension-Practice patterns among certifying American urologists. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017; 36:344–348. PMID: 26547063.
Article
43. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 10:CD012376. PMID: 27696355.
Article
44. Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D. A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol. 2014; 65:1128–1137. PMID: 24433811.
Article
45. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 104:805–823. PMID: 15458906.
Article
46. Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, Smith B, Stroupe K, Rosenman A, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123:5–12. PMID: 24463657.
47. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24:377–384. PMID: 22864764.
Article
48. Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 112:1201–1206. PMID: 19037026.
Article
49. Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L, et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014; 20:33–37. PMID: 24368486.
50. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118:1005–1013. PMID: 21979458.
51. Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206:435.e1–435.e5. PMID: 22397900.
Article
52. Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized, controlled trial. J Urol. 2016; 196:159–165. PMID: 26780167.
Article
53. Salamon CG, Lewis C, Priestley J, Gurshumov E, Culligan PJ. Prospective study of an ultra-lightweight polypropylene Y mesh for robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24:1371–1375. PMID: 23296684.
Article
54. Pan K, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Wang Y, Xu H. A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016; 132:284–291. PMID: 26797199.
Article
55. Costantini E, Porena M, Lazzeri M, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A. Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair: role of hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24:1481–1487. PMID: 23361855.
Article
56. Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27:93–101. PMID: 26179552.
Article
57. Warner WB, Vora S, Hurtado EA, Welgoss JA, Horbach NS, von Pechmann WS. Effect of operative technique on mesh exposure in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18:113–117. PMID: 22453322.
Article
58. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22:205–212. PMID: 20842494.
Article
59. Stepanian AA, Miklos JR, Moore RD, Mattox TF. Risk of mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008; 15:188–196. PMID: 18312989.
Article
60. Meyer I, McGwin G, Swain TA, Alvarez MD, Ellington DR, Richter HE. Synthetic graft augmentation in vaginal prolapse surgery: long-term objective and subjective outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23:614–621. PMID: 26922879.
Article
61. Myers EM, Siff L, Osmundsen B, Geller E, Matthews CA. Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26:585–589. PMID: 25366305.
62. Gracia M, Perelló M, Bataller E, Espuña M, Parellada M, Genís D, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015; 34:654–658. PMID: 24975722.
Article
63. Lee W, Tam J, Kobashi K. Surgery for apical vaginal prolapse after hysterectomy: abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Urol Clin North Am. 2019; 46:113–121. PMID: 30466696.
64. Oliver JL, Kim JH. Robotic sacrocolpopexy-is it the treatment of choice for advanced apical pelvic organ prolapse? Curr Urol Rep. 2017; 18:66. PMID: 28718162.
Article
65. Majercik S, Tsikitis V, Iannitti DA. Strength of tissue attachment to mesh after ventral hernia repair with synthetic composite mesh in a porcine model. Surg Endosc. 2006; 20:1671–1674. PMID: 17001442.
Article
66. Greenberg JA, Clark RM. Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 2:146–158. PMID: 19826572.
67. Linder BJ, Anand M, Klingele CJ, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB, Occhino JA. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy using only absorbable suture for mesh fixation. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017; 23:13–16. PMID: 27636221.
Article
68. Callewaert G, Bosteels J, Housmans S, Verguts J, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Van der Aa F, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Gynecol Surg. 2016; 13:115–123. PMID: 27226787.
Article
69. Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25:1185–1191. PMID: 24846153.
Article
70. Mowat A, Maher C, Pelecanos A. Can the learning curve of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy be reduced by a structured training program? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018; 24:272–276. PMID: 28657989.
Article
71. Tan-Kim J, Nager CW, Grimes CL, Luber KM, Lukacz ES, Brown HW, et al. A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26:649–656. PMID: 25421934.
Article
72. Borahay MA, Oge T, Walsh TM, Patel PR, Rodriguez AM, Kilic GS. Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy using barbed delayed absorbable sutures. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21:412–416. PMID: 24263027.
Article
73. Kallidonis P, Al-Aown A, Vasilas M, Kyriazis I, Panagopoulos V, Fligou F, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy using barbed sutures for mesh fixation and peritoneal closure: a safe option to reduce operational times. Urol Ann. 2017; 9:159–165. PMID: 28479768.
Article
74. Guan X, Ma Y, Gisseman J, Kleithermes C, Liu J. Robotic single-site sacrocolpopexy using barbed suture anchoring and peritoneal tunneling technique: tips and tricks. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24:12–13. PMID: 27344033.
Article
75. Liu J, Bardawil E, Zurawin RK, Wu J, Fu H, Orejuela F, et al. Robotic single-site sacrocolpopexy with retroperitoneal tunneling. JSLS. 2018; 22:e2018.00009.
Article
76. Matanes E, Lauterbach R, Mustafa-Mikhail S, Amit A, Wiener Z, Lowenstein L. Single port robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy: our experience with the first 25 cases. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017; 23:e14–e18. PMID: 28134702.
Article
77. Lowenstein L, Matanes E, Burke YZ. Surgical technique for robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy performed via a single port. Urology. 2017; 103:272. PMID: 28982620.
Article
78. Kim S, Pollock GR, Twiss CO, Funk JT. Surgery for posterior compartment vaginal prolapse: graft augmented repair. Urol Clin North Am. 2019; 46:87–95. PMID: 30466706.
Article
79. Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195:1762–1771. PMID: 17132479.
Article
80. Mowat A, Maher D, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Maher C. Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 3:CD012975. PMID: 29502352.
Article
Full Text Links
  • ICU
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr