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

The Role of Uterine Preservation at the Time of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to synthesize the current literature and provide surgeons with data to inform counseling of eligible patients for uterine-preserving prolapse surgery (UPPS).

METHODS

We compared UPPS to similar techniques incorporating hysterectomy, including native-tissue repairs by vaginal, laparoscopic, or open approach; mesh-reinforced repairs by vaginal, laparoscopic, or open approach; obliterative repairs; and the Manchester procedure. Reviewed outcomes include surgical and patient-reported outcomes, complications, uterine pathology, and sexual function. We conducted a structured literature search of English language articles published 1990-2023, combining MeSH terms for pelvic organ prolapse and UPPS. Data were categorized by procedure and approach, and evaluated to provide recommendations and strength of evidence based on group consensus.

RESULTS

Patient counseling on prolapse surgery should follow a benefit/risk assessment related to techniques that preserve the uterus. The discussion should include the benefits of hysterectomy for cancer detection and prevention and acknowledgment that patients should continue cervical cancer screening and evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding following UPPS. The rate of hysterectomy after UPPS is low and most commonly for recurrent prolapse. If cervical elongation is present, trachelectomy should be considered at the time of UPPS. There is no difference in sexual function between UPPS and prolapse repair with hysterectomy. Data on pregnancy outcomes following UPPS are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine-preserving prolapse surgery should be a surgical option for all patients considering surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse unless contraindications exist. Uterine-preserving prolapse surgery should be offered using an individualized benefit and risk discussion of both approaches to help patients make an informed decision based on their own values.

Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation

Background

Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome.

Methods

We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing.

Results

We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery.

Limitations

Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Complications of Pelvic Prolapse Surgery Using Mesh: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a public health problem that influences millions of women around the globe, and it has a significant impact on the quality of life. From the FDA statement regarding the complications of using mesh implants in POP surgery to studies that have shown the benefits and side effects, we conducted a systematic review investigating the complications associated with surgical mesh implantation for POP repair.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a comprehensive search of scientific databases. Studies evaluating the use of mesh in POP surgery and reporting on associated complications were included.

RESULTS

Among 2816 studies, 28 studies met the research criteria, with a total number of 8958 patients, revealing that in laparoscopic mesh surgery, the rate of mesh exposure was lower compared to vaginal mesh surgery, among other complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic mesh surgery is superior as a long-term approach for POP repair compared to vaginal mesh surgery, offering lower complication rates and potentially better anatomical success. However, vaginal mesh surgery remains a valuable option for patients who are unsuitable for laparoscopy due to specific factors. Future research should explore alternative techniques, like pectopexy with or without mesh, to further improve surgical outcomes and patient experience.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomised controlled trial and prospective cohort (SALTO-2 trial)

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) or vaginal sacrospinous fixation (VSF) is the most optimal surgical treatment in patients with POP-Q stage ≥2 vaginal vault prolapse (VVP).

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) and prospective cohort study alongside.

SETTING

Seven non-university teaching hospitals and two university hospitals in the Netherlands.

POPULATION

Patients with symptomatic post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse, requiring surgical treatment.

METHODS

Randomisation in a 1:1 ratio to LSC or VSF. Evaluation of prolapse was done using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q). All participants were asked to fill in various Dutch validated questionnaires 12 months postoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes included composite outcome of success and anatomical failure. Furthermore, we examined peri-operative data, complications and sexual function.

RESULTS

A total of 179 women, 64 women randomised and 115 women, participated in a prospective cohort. Disease-specific quality of life did not differ after 12 months between the LSC and VSF group in the RCT and the cohort (RCT: P = 0.887; cohort: P = 0.704). The composite outcomes of success for the apical compartment, in the RCT and cohort, were 89.3% and 90.3% in the LSC group and 86.2% and 87.8% in the VSF group, respectively (RCT: P = 0.810; cohort: P = 0.905). There were no differences in number of reinterventions and complications between both groups (reinterventions RCT: P = 0.934; cohort: P = 0.120; complications RCT: P = 0.395; cohort: P = 0.129).

CONCLUSIONS

LSC and VSF are both effective treatments for vaginal vault prolapse, after a follow-up period of 12 months.

Gynecologists' perspectives on surgical treatment for apical prolapse: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Vaginal sacrospinous fixation (VSF) without mesh and sacrocolpopexy (SCP) with mesh are the most frequently performed surgical procedures for apical prolapse in the Netherlands. There is no long-term evidence suggesting the optimal technique, however. The aim was to identify which factors play a role in the choice between these surgical treatment options.

METHODS

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews amongst Dutch gynecologists was carried out. An inductive content analysis was performed with Atlas.ti.

RESULTS

Ten interviews were analyzed. All gynecologists performed vaginal surgeries for apical prolapse, six gynecologists perform SCP themselves. Six gynecologists would perform VSF for a primary vaginal vault prolapse (VVP); three gynecologists preferred a SCP. All participants prefer a SCP for recurrent VVP. All participants have stated that multiple comorbidities could be a reason for choosing VSF, as this procedure is considered less invasive. Most participants choose a VSF in the case of older age (6 out of 10) or higher body mass index (7 out of 10). All treat primary uterine prolapse with vaginal, uterine-preserving surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent apical prolapse is the most important factor in advising patients which treatment they should undergo for VVP or uterine descent. Also, the patient's health status and the patient's own preference are important factors. Gynecologists who do not perform the SCP in their own clinic are more likely to perform a VSF and find more reasons not to advise a SCP. All participants prefer a vaginal surgery for a primary uterine 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.

Review of Vaginal Approaches to Apical Prolapse Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent literature and provide up-to-date knowledge on new and important findings in vaginal approaches to apical prolapse surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall prolapse recurrence rates following transvaginal apical prolapse repair range from 13.7 to 70.3% in medium- to long-term follow-up, while reoperation rates for prolapse recurrence are lower, ranging from 1 to 35%. Subjective prolapse symptoms remain improved despite increasing anatomic failure rates over time. The majority of studies demonstrated improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life in over 80% of patients 2-3 years after transvaginal repair, with similar outcomes with and without uterine preservation. Contemporary studies continue to demonstrate the safety of transvaginal native tissue repair with most adverse events occurring within the first 2 years. Transvaginal apical prolapse repair is safe and effective. It is associated with long-term improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life despite increasing rates of prolapse recurrence over time. Subjective outcomes do not correlate with anatomic outcomes.

Single-incision mini-slings versus standard synthetic mid-urethral slings for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: The SIMS RCT

BACKGROUND

Stress urinary incontinence is the most common type of urinary incontinence in premenopausal women. Until recently, synthetic mid-urethral slings (mesh/tape) were the standard surgical treatment, if conservative management failed. Adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings are newer, use less mesh and may reduce perioperative morbidity, but it is unclear how their success rates and safety compare with those of standard tension-free mid-urethral slings.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare tension-free standard mid-urethral slings with adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings among women with stress urinary incontinence requiring surgical intervention, in terms of patient-reported effectiveness, health-related quality of life, safety and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial. Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio).

SETTING

The trial was set in 21 UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were women aged ≥ 18 years with predominant stress urinary incontinence, undergoing a mid-urethral sling procedure.

INTERVENTIONS

Single-incision mini-slings, compared with standard mid-urethral slings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient-reported success rates on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale at 15 months post randomisation (≈ 1 year post surgery), with success defined as outcomes of 'very much improved' or 'much improved'. The primary economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, impact on other urinary symptoms, quality of life and sexual function.

RESULTS

A total of 600 participants were randomised. At 15 months post randomisation, adjustable anchored single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to tension-free standard mid-urethral slings at the 10% margin for the primary outcome [single-incision mini-sling 79% (212/268) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 76% (189/250), risk difference 4.6, 95% confidence interval -2.7 to 11.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Similarly, at 3 years' follow-up, patient-reported success rates in the single-incision mini-sling group were non-inferior to those of the standard mid-urethral sling group at the 10% margin [single-incision mini-sling 72% (177/246) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 67% (157/235), risk difference 5.7, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 12.8; p non-inferiority < 0.001]. Tape/mesh exposure rates were higher for single-incision mini-sling participants, with 3.3% (9/276) [compared with 1.9% (5/261) in the standard mid-urethral sling group] reporting tape exposure over the 3 years of follow-up. The rate of groin/thigh pain was slightly higher in the single-incision mini-sling group at 15 months [single-incision mini-sling 15% (41/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 12% (31/261), risk difference 3.0%, 95% confidence interval -1.1% to 7.1%]; however, by 3 years, the rate of pain was slightly higher among the standard mid-urethral sling participants [single-incision mini-sling 14% (39/276) vs. standard mid-urethral sling 15% (39/261), risk difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -4.1 to 2.5]. At the 3-year follow-up, quality of life and sexual function outcomes were similar in both groups: for the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life, the mean difference in scores was -1.1 (95% confidence interval -3.1 to 0.8; p = 0.24), and for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, International Urogynecological Association-Revised, it was 0 (95% confidence interval -0.1, 0.1; p = 0.92). However, more women in the single-incision mini-sling group reported dyspareunia [12% (17/145), compared with 4.8% (7/145) in the standard mid-urethral sling group, risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 1.9% to 12.1%]. The base-case economics results showed no difference in costs (-£6, 95% confidence interval -£228 to £208) or quality-adjusted life-years (0.005, 95% confidence interval -0.068 to 0.073) between the groups. There is a 56% probability that single-incision mini-slings will be considered cost-effective at the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold value for a quality-adjusted life-year.

LIMITATIONS

Follow-up data beyond 3 years post randomisation are not available to inform longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision mini-slings were non-inferior to standard mid-urethral slings in patient-reported success rates at up to 3 years' follow-up.

FUTURE WORK

Success rates, adverse events, retreatment rates, symptoms, and quality-of-life scores at 10 years' follow-up will help inform long-term effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered as ISRCTN93264234.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Current practice in the measurement and interpretation of intervention adherence in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ideally all participants in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) should fully receive their allocated intervention; however, this rarely occurs in practice. Intervention adherence affects Type II error so influences the interpretation of trial results and subsequent implementation. We aimed to describe current practice in the definition, measurement, and reporting of intervention adherence in non-pharmacological RCTs, and how this data is incorporated into a trial's interpretation and conclusions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of phase III RCTs published between January 2018 and June 2020 in the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library for the Health Technology Assessment, Programme Grants for Applied Research, and Public Health Research funding streams.

RESULTS

Of 237 reports published, 76 met the eligibility criteria and were included. Most RCTs (n = 68, 89.5%) reported adherence, though use of terminology varied widely; nearly three quarters of these (n = 49, 72.1%) conducted a sensitivity analysis. Adherence measures varied between intervention types: behavioural change (n = 10, 43.5%), psychological therapy (n = 5, 83.3%) and physiotherapy/rehabilitation (n = 8, 66.7%) interventions predominately measured adherence based on session attendance. Whereas medical device and surgical interventions (n = 17, 73.9%) primarily record the number of participants receiving the allocated intervention, a third (n = 33, 67.3%) of studies reported a difference in findings between primary and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most trials report elements of adherence, terminology was inconsistent, and there was no systematic approach to its measurement, analyses, interpretation, or reporting. Given the importance of adherence within clinical trials, there is a pressing need for a standardised approach or framework.

The relative importance of information items and preferred mode of delivery when disseminating results from trials to participants: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Participants want to receive the results of trials that they have participated in. Dissemination practices are disparate, and there is limited guidance available on what information to provide to participants and how to deliver it.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to establish what trial participants believe should be included in a results summary and how this information should be delivered.

METHODS

A mixed-methods design was used with focus groups and interviews involving women convenience-sampled from two host randomized-controlled trials. Participants ranked information items in order of their importance for inclusion in a trial results summary and potential modes of delivery by preference. All participants provided written informed consent.

RESULTS

Sixteen women (mean age [SD] = 71.6 [9.7] years) participated. Participants ranked 'individual results from the study' and 'summary of overall trial results' as most important. Themes such as reassurance and setting results in context were identified as contributing to participants' decisions around ranking. 'A thank you for your contribution to the study' was ranked the least important. Delivery by post was the preferred mode of receiving results, with receiving a hard copy of results cited as helpful to refer back to.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide insight into what information trial participants deem as important when receiving trial results and how they would like results delivered. Involving patients during development of trial results to be communicated to participants could help to ensure that the right information is delivered in the right way.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Public partners were involved in focussed aspects of study conduct.

Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD =  - 0.159 days, 95% CI [-0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD =  - 0.339, 95% CI [-0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD =  - 1.191 h, 95% CI [-1.836, -0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]).

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterine preserving surgical procedures versus those which include hysterectomy in the treatment of POP. Hysteropexy procedures may be associated with a shorter operative time and fewer visceral injuries. This is consistent with older analyses.

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction and hypothesis

Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy offers a uterine-sparing alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, although randomised comparative data are lacking. This study was aimed at comparing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse was performed, with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. The primary outcome was reoperation for apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported mesh complications, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification, Patient Global Impression of Improvement in prolapse symptoms and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms, Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) and PISQ-12 questionnaires.

Results

A total of 101 women were randomised and 62 women attended for follow-up at a mean of 100 months postoperatively (range 84–119 months). None reported a mesh-associated complication. The risk of reoperation for apical prolapse was 17.2% following vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and 6.1% following laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH; relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.07–1.68, p = 0.17). Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was associated with a statistically significantly higher apical suspension (POP-Q point C −5 vs −4.25, p = 0.02) and longer total vaginal length (9 cm vs 6 cm, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the change in ICIQ-VS scores between the two groups (ICIQ-VS change −22 vs −25, p = 0.59).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension have comparable reoperation rates and subjective outcomes. Potential advantages of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy include a lower risk of apical reoperation, greater apical support and increased total vaginal length.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6

Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey)

Background

The aim of this study was to explore the personal views of female gynecologists regarding the management of POP with a particular focus on the issue of uterine sparing surgery.

Methods

A questionnaire based survey of practicing female gynecologists in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Results

A total of 140 female gynecologists from 81 units responded to our questionnaire. The majority of respondents stated they would rely on a urogynecologist to aid them with their choice of POP management options. The most preferred options for POP management were sacrocolpopexy and physiotherapy. Almost 2/3 of respondents opted for a hysterectomy together with POP surgery, if they were menopausal, even if the anatomical outcome was similar to uterine sparing POP surgery. Moreover, 81.4% of respondents, who initially opted for a uterine sparing procedure, changed their mind if the anatomical success of POP surgery with concomitant hysterectomy was superior. Discussing uterine cancer risk in relation to other organs had a less significant impact on their choices.

Conclusions

The majority of female gynecologists in our study opted for hysterectomy if they were postmenopausal at the time of POP surgery. However, variation in information provision had an impact on their choice.

Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair

The lifetime risk of women for undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is estimated to be 11-19%, and 30% of these women will require subsequent reoperation over time. Following hysterectomy, 3.6 per 1,000 person-years need surgical correction of prolapse, and in two-thirds of these cases multi-compartment prolapse is present. In the last decades, vaginally synthetic meshes were widely used in pelvic reconstructive surgery. However, after the decision of the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 to stop selling all surgical mesh devices for transvaginal prolapse repair, native tissue (NT) vaginal repair seems to regain an important role in pelvic reconstructive surgery. In the literature, various surgical techniques have been described for apical repair, but the best surgical approach is still to be proven. This paper analyzes the current evidence from recent literature on NT vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) repair, with special focus on the safety and efficacy of the various vaginal techniques.

How to deal with a temporary suspension and restarting your trial: our experiences and lessons learnt

Whilst the issues around early termination of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are well documented in the literature, trials can also be temporarily suspended with the real prospect that they may subsequently restart. There is little guidance in the literature as to how to manage such a temporary suspension. In this paper, we describe the temporary suspension of a trial within our clinical trials unit because of concerns over the safety of transvaginal synthetic mesh implants. We also describe the challenges, considerations, and lessons learnt during the suspension that we are now applying in the current COVID-19 pandemic which has led to activities in many RCTs across the world undergoing a temporary suspension.

There were three key phases within the temporary suspension: the decision to suspend, implementation of the suspension, and restarting. Each of these phases presented individual challenges which are discussed within this paper, along with the lessons learnt. There were obvious challenges around recruitment, delivery of the intervention, and follow-up. Additional challenges included communication between stakeholders, evolving risk assessment, updates to trial protocol and associated paperwork, maintaining site engagement, data-analysis, and workload within the trial team and Sponsor organisation.

Based on our experience of managing a temporary suspension, we developed an action plan and guidance (see Additional File 1) for managing a significant trial event, such as a temporary suspension. We have used this document to help us manage the suspension of activities within our portfolio of trials during the current COVID-19 pandemic.