Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse is the descent of one or more of the pelvic organs (uterus, vaginal apex, bladder, or bowel) into the vagina. In recent years, surgeons have increasingly used grafts in transvaginal repairs. Graft material can be synthetic or biological. The aim is to reduce prolapse recurrence and surpass the effectiveness of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse. This is a review update; the previous version was published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair or other grafts in the surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and two clinical trials registers (March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 RCTs (7846 women). The certainty of the evidence was largely moderate (ranging from very low to moderate). Transvaginal permanent mesh versus native tissue repair Awareness of prolapse at six months to seven years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.95; I2 = 34%; 17 studies, 2932 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 23% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 17% and 22% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair. Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95; I2 = 35%; 17 studies, 2485 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for incontinence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.59; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 2206 women; moderate-certainty evidence). However, more women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.26; I2 = 54%; 27 studies, 3916 women; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if 7.1% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7.6% and 16% will require repeat surgery after permanent mesh repair. The rate of mesh exposure was 11.8% and surgery for mesh exposure was 6.1% in women who had mesh repairs. Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.55; I2 = 84%; 25 studies, 3680 women; very low-certainty evidence). Permanent transvaginal mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 2001 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.67, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.28; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 1997 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.79; I2 = 27%; 16 studies, 1308 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life outcomes; however, there was substantial heterogeneity in the data. Transvaginal absorbable mesh versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the two methods of repair at two years for the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44; 1 study, 54 women), rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40; 1 study, 66 women), or recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.70; 1 study, 66 women). The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for bladder-related outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Transvaginal biological graft versus native tissue repair There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; I2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1374 women; moderate-certainty evidence), repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.77; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 899 women; moderate-certainty evidence), and recurrent prolapse on examination (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.29; I2 = 53%; 9 studies, 1278 women; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life. Transvaginal permanent mesh versus any other permanent mesh or biological graft vaginal repair Sparse reporting of primary outcomes in both comparisons significantly limited any meaningful analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of total repeat surgery (for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure), bladder injury, and de novo stress urinary incontinence. While the direction of effects and effect sizes are relatively unchanged from the 2016 version of this review, the certainty and precision of the findings have all improved with a larger sample size. In addition, the clinical relevance of these data has improved, with 10 trials reporting 3- to 10-year outcomes. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. Data on the management of recurrent prolapse are of limited quality. Given the risk-benefit profile, we recommend that any use of permanent transvaginal mesh should be conducted under the oversight of the local ethics committee in compliance with local regulatory recommendations. Data are not supportive of absorbable meshes or biological grafts for the management of transvaginal prolapse.

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Apical vaginal prolapse is the descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available, but there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 14 March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 RCTs (6705 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodology, and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures compared to sacral colpopexy for vault prolapse (seven RCTs, n=613; six months to f four-year review) Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.21, 4 RCTs, n = 346, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 8% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 18% (10% to 32%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Surgery for recurrent prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.04; 6 RCTs, n = 497, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 6% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, 14% (8% to 25%) are likely to require it after vaginal procedures. Prolapse on examination is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.65; 5 RCTs, n = 422; I2 = 24%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 18% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, between 23% and 47% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Other outcomes: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of vaginal procedures on dyspareunia was uncertain (RR 3.44, 95% CI 0.61 to 19.53; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (six RCTS, 554 women, one to seven year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.10 to 9.98; 2 RCTs, n = 200, very low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.54; 5 RCTs, n = 403; I2 = 9%, low-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- there was little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 2 RCTs n = 230; I2 = 9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysteropexy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (two RCTs, n = 388, 1-four-year review) Awareness of prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.55 95% CI 0.21 to 1.44; 1 RCT n = 257, low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.44; 2 RCTs, n = 345; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 2 RCTs n =367; I2 =9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to vaginal hysteropexy (four RCTs, n = 620, 6 months to five-year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.0 95% CI 0.44 to 2.24; 2 RCTs, n = 365, I2 = 0% moderate-quality certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.60; 3 RCTs, n = 443; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.61; 2 RCTs n =361; I2 =74%, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes: Total vaginal length (TVL) was shorter after vaginal hysterectomy (mean difference (MD) 0.89cm 95% CI 0.49 to 1.28cm shorter; 3 RCTs, n=413, low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between the groups in terms of operating time, dyspareunia and stress urinary incontinence. Other analyses There were no differences identified for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (4 RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (3 RCTs), pectopexy versus other apical suspensions (5 RCTs), continuous versus interrupted sutures at sacral colpopexy (2 RCTs), absorbable versus permanent sutures at apical suspensions (5 RCTs) or different routes of sacral colpopexy. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is associated with shorter admission time than open approach (3 RCTs) and quicker operating time than robotic approach (3 RCTs). Transvaginal mesh does not confer any advantage over native tissue repair, however is associated with a 17.5% rate of mesh exposure (7 RCTs).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, and postoperative SUI than a variety of vaginal interventions. The limited evidence does not support the use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. There were no differences in primary outcomes for different routes of sacral colpopexy. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter operating time than robotic approach, and shorter admission than open approach. There were no significant differences between vaginal hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse nor between vaginal hysteropexy and abdominal hysteropexy/cervicopexy. There were no differences detected between absorbable and non absorbable sutures however, the certainty of evidence for mesh exposure and dyspareunia was low.

Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic floor disorders are common, especially in pregnancy and after delivery, in the postmenopausal period, and old age, and they can significantly impact on the patient's quality of life.

METHODS

This narrative review is based on publications retrieved by a selective search of the literature, with special consideration to original articles and AWMF guidelines.

RESULTS

Pelvic floor physiotherapy (evidence level [EL] 1), the use of pessaries (EL2), and local estrogen therapy can help alleviate stress/urge urinary incontinence and other symptoms of urogenital prolapse. Physiotherapy can reduce urinary incontinence by 62% during pregnancy and by 29% 3-6 months post partum. Anticholinergic and β-sympathomimetic drugs are indicated for the treatment of an overactive bladder with or without urinary urge incontinence (EL1). For patients with stress urinary incontinence, selective serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors can be prescribed (EL1). The tension-free tape is the current standard of surgical treatment (EL1); in an observational follow-up study, 87.2% of patients were satisfied with the outcome 17 years after surgery. Fascial reconstruction techniques are indicated for the treatment of primary pelvic organ prolapse, and mesh-based surgical procedures for recurrences and severe prolapse (EL1).

CONCLUSION

Urogynecological symptoms should be specifically asked about by physicians of all relevant specialties; if present, they should be treated conservatively at first. Structured surgical techniques with and without mesh are available for the treatment of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Preventive measures against pelvic floor dysfunction should be offered during pregnancy and post partum.

Summary: 2021 International Consultation on Incontinence Evidence-Based Surgical Pathway for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

(1) Background: There is wide variation in the reported prevalence rates for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). There is also wide variation in the rate at which surgical interventions for pelvic organ prolapse are performed, as well as the type of interventions undertaken. As part of the International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI), our committee was tasked to produce evidence-based pathways for the surgical management of POP, any associated stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and bowel dysfunction. (2) Methods: To enable us to generate such evidence, we undertook a thorough search for the POP surgery-related, English-language scientific literature published up to April 2021. (3) Results: The committee evaluated the literature and made recommendations based on the Oxford grading system. (4) Conclusions: This review serves to provide a summary of the 2021 ICI surgical management of an evidence-based prolapse pathway and outline the evidence used to inform this guidance.

Sexual, bladder and bowel function following different minimally invasive techniques of radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer

Purpose

Despite the establishment of radical surgery for therapy of cervical cancer, data on quality of life and patient-reported outcomes are scarce. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate bladder, bowel and sexual function in women who underwent minimally invasive surgery for early-stage cervical cancer.

Methods

From 2007–2013, 261 women underwent laparoscopically assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy (LARVH = 45), vaginally assisted laparoscopic or robotic radical hysterectomy (VALRRH = 61) or laparoscopic total mesometrial resection (TMMR = 25) and 131 of them completed the validated German version of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (PFQ). Results were compared with controls recruited from gynecological clinics (n = 24) and with urogynecological patients (n = 63).

Results

Groups were similar regarding age, BMI and parity. The TMMR group had significantly shorter median follow-up (16 months versus 70 and 36 months). Postoperatively, deterioration of bladder function was reported by 70%, 57% and 44% in the LARVH, VARRVH and TMMR groups, respectively (p = 0.734). Bowel function was significantly worse after TMMR with a higher deterioration rate in 72 versus 43% (LARVH) and 47% (VARRVH) with a correspondingly higher bowel dysfunction score of 2.9 versus 1.5 and 1.8, respectively and 1.8 in urogynaecological patients. Sexual dysfunction was common in all surgical groups. 38% considered their vagina too short which was significantly associated with deep dyspareunia.

Compared with controls, surgical groups had significantly increased PFQ scores.

Conclusion

Pelvic floor dysfunction commonly deteriorates and negatively impacts on quality of life after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy, especially bowel function after TMMR. Pelvic floor symptoms should routinely be addressed pre- and postoperatively.

The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to establish the minimal important difference (MID) of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) in women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence or symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. A further aim was to estimate dysfunction scores dependent on the bothersomeness in a community cohort.

METHODS

The APFQ was completed before and 6 weeks after pelvic floor surgery by 183 women (n = 80 suburethral tape insertion; n = 103 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy). Distribution and anchor-based methods were used to establish the effect size, standardised response mean and MID (calculated as the difference between women who stated no change or a little better in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I]). In a community cohort of 470 women aged 42-80 years, the APFQ was analysed according to disclosed bothersomeness.

RESULTS

For the suburethral tape group, the effect size in the bladder domain was 1.5 and the PGI-I-based MID 1.3. For the POP surgery, group the effect size in the prolapse domain was calculated at 2.2 and the PGI-I-based MID at 1.0. The domain scores for women who declared no bother were significantly different from those who were a little bothered (bladder domain 2.2 vs 4.0, bowel 0.6 vs 1.7, POP 0.1 vs 3.2, sex 1.8 vs 3.0) with wide variations.

CONCLUSIONS

The MID of the APFQ ranged from 1.0 to 1.3 in the domains after POP or continence surgery respectively. This is corroborated by the differences in domain scores from community-based women who were bothered versus not bothered by pelvic floor symptoms.

Perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects as many as 50% of parous women, with 14% to 19% of women undergoing a surgical correction. Although surgery for the treatment of POP is common, limited supportive data can be found in the literature regarding the preoperative and postoperative interventions related to these procedures. The main goal of perioperative interventions is to reduce the rate of adverse events while improving women's outcomes following surgical intervention for prolapse. A broad spectrum of perioperative interventions are available, and although the benefits of interventions such as prophylactic antibiotics before abdominal surgery are well established, others are unique to women undergoing POP surgeries and as such need to be investigated separately.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to compare the safety and effectiveness of a range of perioperative interventions versus other interventions or no intervention (control group) at the time of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched 30 November 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse that compared a perioperative intervention related to pelvic organ prolapse surgery versus no treatment or another intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were objective failure at any site and subjective postoperative prolapse symptoms. We also measured adverse effects, focusing on intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, and postoperative urinary tract infection.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs that compared eight different interventions versus no treatment for 1992 women in five countries. Most interventions were assessed by only one RCT with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate. The main limitation was imprecision, associated with small sample sizes and low event rates.Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with no treatment (three RCTs) - peri-operative intervention The simplest of the PFMT programmes required women to attend six perioperative consultations in the three months surrounding prolapse surgery. Trial results provided no clear evidence of a difference between groups in objective failure at any site at 12 to 24 months (odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.54; two RCTs, 327 women; moderate-quality evidence). With respect to awareness of prolapse, findings were inconsistent. One RCT found no evidence of a difference between groups at 24 months (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.87; one RCT, 305 women; low-quality evidence), and a second small RCT reported symptom reduction from the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Questionnaire completed by the intervention group at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -3.90, 95% CI -6.11 to -1.69; one RCT, 27 women; low-quality evidence). Researchers found no clear differences between groups at 24-month follow-up in rates of repeat surgery (or pessary) for prolapse (OR 1.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 5.02; one RCT, 316 women; low-quality evidence).Other interventionsSingle RCTs evaluated the following interventions: preoperative guided imagery (N = 44); injection of vasoconstrictor agent at commencement of vaginal prolapse surgery (N = 76); ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension (N = 91); vaginal pack (N = 116); prophylactic antibiotics for women requiring postoperative urinary catheterisation (N = 159); and postoperative vaginal dilators (N = 60).Two RCTs evaluated bowel preparation (N = 298), and four RCTs assessed the method and timing of postoperative catheterisation (N = 514) - all in different comparisons.None of these studies reported our primary review outcomes. One study reported intraoperative blood loss and suggested that vaginal injection of vasoconstrictors at commencement of surgery may reduce blood loss by a mean of about 30 mL. Another study reported intraoperative ureteral injury and found no clear evidence that ureteral stent placement reduces ureteral injury. Three RCTs reported postoperative urinary tract infection and found no conclusive evidence that rates of urinary tract infection were influenced by use of a vaginal pack, prophylactic antibiotics, or vaginal dilators. Other studies did not report these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was a paucity of data about perioperative interventions in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. A structured programme of pelvic floor muscle training before and after prolapse surgery did not consistently demonstrate any benefit for the intervention; however, this finding is based on the results of two small studies. With regard to other interventions (preoperative bowel preparation and injection of vasoconstrictor agent, ureteral stent placement during uterosacral ligament suspension, postoperative vaginal pack insertion, use of vaginal dilators, prophylactic antibiotics for postoperative catheter care), we found no evidence regarding rates of recurrent prolapse and no clear evidence that these interventions were associated with clinically meaningful reductions in adverse effects, such as intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusion, intraoperative ureteral injury, or postoperative urinary tract infection.

Surgery for women with pelvic organ prolapse with or without stress urinary incontinence

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common in women and is frequently associated with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). In many cases however, SUI is present only with the prolapse reduced (occult SUI) or may develop after surgical treatment for prolapse (de novo SUI).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact on postoperative bladder function of surgery for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse with or without concomitant or delayed two-stage continence procedures to treat or prevent stress urinary incontinence.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE-In-Process, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, handsearching journals and conference proceedings (searched 11 November 2017) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including surgical operations for POP with or without continence procedures in continent or incontinent women. Our primary outcome was subjective postoperative SUI. Secondary outcomes included recurrent POP on examination, overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms, and voiding dysfunction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 RCTs (2717 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (especially blinding of outcome assessors), indirectness and imprecision associated with low event rates and small samples.POP surgery in women with SUIVaginal repair with vs without concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS)A concomitant MUS probably improves postoperative rates of subjective SUI, as the evaluated clinical effect appears large (risk ratio (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.48; 319 participants, two studies; I² = 28%; moderate-quality evidence), and probably decreases the need for further continence surgery (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74; 134 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk of SUI with POP surgery alone is 39%, the risk with an MUS is between 8% and 19%.Rates of recurrent POP on examination, OAB, and voiding dysfunction were not reported.Vaginal repair with concomitant vs delayed MUSEvidence suggested little or no difference between groups in reporting postoperative SUI (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.37; 140 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence).Rates of recurrent POP on examination, OAB, and voiding dysfunction and the need for further surgery were not reported.Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with vs without Burch colposuspensionAn additional Burch colposuspension probably has little or no effect on postoperative SUI at one year (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.60; 47 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), OAB symptoms (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.18; 33 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), or voiding dysfunction (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.43; 47 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). Rates of recurrent POP and the need for further surgery were not reported.POP surgery in women with occult SUIVaginal repair with vs without concomitant MUSMUS probably improves rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.55; 369 participants, five studies; I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk with surgery alone is 34%, the risk with a concomitant MUS is between 10% and 22%. Evidence suggests little or no difference between groups in rates of recurrent POP (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.19; 50 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence), OAB symptoms (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07; 43 participants, one study; low-quality evidence), or voiding dysfunction (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.15 to 6.55; 50 participants, one study; low-quality evidence). The need for further surgery was not reported.POP surgery in continent women Vaginal repair with vs without concomitant MUSResearchers provided no conclusive evidence of a difference between groups in rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.00; 220 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the risk with surgery alone is 40%, the risk with a concomitant MUS is between 19% and 40%. Rates of recurrent POP, OAB, and voiding dysfunction and the need for further surgery were not reported.Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with vs without Burch colposuspensionWe are uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in rates of subjective postoperative SUI (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.19 to 9.01; 379 participants, two studies; I² = 90%; low-quality evidence), as RCTs produced results in different directions with a very wide confidence interval. We are also uncertain whether there is a difference between groups in rates of voiding dysfunction (RR 8.49, 95% CI 0.48 to 151.59; 66 participants, one study; low-quality evidence) or recurrent POP (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.30; 250 participants, one study; moderate-quality evidence. No study reported OAB symptoms and need for further surgery.Vaginal repair with armed anterior vaginal mesh repair vs anterior native tissue Anterior armed mesh repair may slightly increase postoperative de novo SUI (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.37; 905 participants, seven studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) but may decrease recurrent POP (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.38; 848 participants, five studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference in rates of voiding dysfunction (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 12.10; 125 participants, two studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Rates of OAB and the need for further surgery were not reported.Adverse events were infrequently reported in all studies; cost was not studied in any trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women with POP and SUI (symptomatic or occult), a concurrent MUS probably reduces postoperative SUI and should be discussed in counselling. It might be feasible to postpone the MUS and perform a delayed (two-stage) continence procedure, if required.Although an abdominal continence procedure (Burch colposuspension) during abdominal POP surgery in continent women reduced de novo SUI rates in one underpowered trial, another RCT reported conflicting results. Adding an MUS during vaginal POP repair might reduce postoperative development of SUI.An anterior native tissue repair might be better than use of transobturator mesh for preventing postoperative SUI; however, prolapse recurrence is more common with native tissue repair.

The minimal important difference of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to establish the minimal important difference (MID) of the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) in women undergoing surgery for stress urinary incontinence or symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. A further aim was to estimate dysfunction scores dependent on the bothersomeness in a community cohort.

METHODS

The APFQ was completed before and 6 weeks after pelvic floor surgery by 183 women (n = 80 suburethral tape insertion; n = 103 laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy). Distribution and anchor-based methods were used to establish the effect size, standardised response mean and MID (calculated as the difference between women who stated no change or a little better in the Patient Global Impression of Improvement [PGI-I]). In a community cohort of 470 women aged 42-80 years, the APFQ was analysed according to disclosed bothersomeness.

RESULTS

For the suburethral tape group, the effect size in the bladder domain was 1.5 and the PGI-I-based MID 1.3. For the POP surgery, group the effect size in the prolapse domain was calculated at 2.2 and the PGI-I-based MID at 1.0. The domain scores for women who declared no bother were significantly different from those who were a little bothered (bladder domain 2.2 vs 4.0, bowel 0.6 vs 1.7, POP 0.1 vs 3.2, sex 1.8 vs 3.0) with wide variations.

CONCLUSIONS

The MID of the APFQ ranged from 1.0 to 1.3 in the domains after POP or continence surgery respectively. This is corroborated by the differences in domain scores from community-based women who were bothered versus not bothered by pelvic floor symptoms.

Submaximal pelvic floor muscle contractions: similar bladder-neck elevation, longer duration, less intra-abdominal pressure

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

An adequate pelvic floor muscle contraction (PFMC) elevates the bladder neck (BN) and stabilizes it during increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP). A maximal PFMC may increase the IAP and thereby prevent BN elevation. The aim of this study was to assess BN elevation during submaximal and maximal PFMC and their achievable duration.

METHODS

We recruited 68 women with stress urinary incontinence and 14 vaginally nulliparous continent controls who were able to perform a PFMC on vaginal palpation. Women were upright and performed a maximal PFMC as long as possible, followed by a submaximal PFMC, controlled by vaginal electromyogram (EMG). BN position was measured with perineal ultrasound, IAP and urethral pressure with a microtip catheter, and breathing with a circular thorax sensor.

RESULTS

A submaximal PFMC elevated the bladder neck 4 mm in continent and incontinent women (p = 0.655) and 4.5 vs. 5 mm during maximal PFMC (0.528). Submaximal PFMC was maintained significantly longer than a maximal PFMC (33 vs 12 s) with no difference between groups. A maximal PFMC resulted in BN descent in 29% of continent and 28% of incontinent women, which was not observed during submaximal PFMC. Breathing was normal in 70% of continent and 71% of incontinent women during submaximal PFMC but stopped completely in 21 and 50%, respectively, during maximal PFMC (p = 0.011). IAP increase was significantly greater with maximal PFMC in both groups (24 vs. 9.6 cmH₂O and 17 vs. 9 cmH₂O, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Submaximal PFMC are sufficient to elevate the bladder neck, can be maintained longer, and breathing was not influenced.

Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse

BACKGROUND

Posterior vaginal wall prolapse (also known as 'posterior compartment prolapse') can cause a sensation of bulge in the vagina along with symptoms of obstructed defecation and sexual dysfunction. Interventions for prevention and conservative management include lifestyle measures, pelvic floor muscle training, and pessary use. We conducted this review to assess the surgical management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of any surgical intervention compared with another surgical intervention for management of posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) (searched April 2017). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of surgery for posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were subjective awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery for any prolapse, and objectively determined recurrent posterior wall prolapse.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 RCTs evaluating 1099 women. Evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of evidence quality were risk of bias (associated mainly with performance, detection, and attrition biases) and imprecision (associated with small overall sample sizes and low event rates).Transanal repair versus transvaginal repair (four RCTs; n = 191; six months' to four years' follow-up)Awareness of prolapse is probably more common after the transanal approach (risk ratio (RR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 7.70; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). If 10% of women are aware of prolapse after transvaginal repair, between 10% and 79% are likely to be aware after transanal repair.Repeat surgery for any prolapse: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.75 to 7.88; 1 RCT; n = 57; low-quality evidence).Recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse is probably more likely after transanal repair (RR 4.12, 95% CI 1.56 to 10.88; 2 RCTs; n = 87; I² = 35%; moderate-quality evidence). If 10% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after transvaginal repair, between 16% and 100% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after transanal repair.Postoperative obstructed defecation is probably more likely with transanal repair (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.79; 3 RCTs; n = 113; I² = 10%; low-quality evidence).Postoperative dyspareunia: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 2 RCTs; n = 80; I² = 5%; moderate-quality evidence).Postoperative complications: Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of any differences between groups (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.94 to 13.54; 3 RCTs; n = 135; I² = 37%; low-quality evidence). If 2% of women have complications after transvaginal repair, then between 2% and 21% are likely to have complications after transanal repair.Evidence shows no clear differences between groups in operating time (in minutes) (mean difference (MD) 1.49, 95% CI -11.83 to 8.84; 3 RCTs; n = 137; I² = 90%; very low-quality evidence).Biological graft versus native tissue repairEvidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.62; 2 RCTs; n = 181; I² = 13%; moderate-quality evidence) or repeat surgery for any prolapse (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.97; 2 RCTs; n = 271; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Trials have provided no conclusive evidence of a difference in rates of recurrent posterior vaginal wall prolapse (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; 3 RCTs; n = 377; I² = 6%; moderate-quality evidence); if 13% of women have recurrent prolapse on examination after native tissue repair, between 4% and 13% are likely to have recurrent prolapse after biological graft. Evidence is insufficient to show whether there were any differences between groups in rates of postoperative obstructed defecation (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.86; 2 RCTs; n = 172; I² = 42%; moderate-quality evidence) or postoperative dyspareunia (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.25; 2 RCTs; n = 152; I² = 74%; low-quality evidence). Postoperative complications were more common with biological repair (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.72; 3 RCTs; n = 448; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsSingle RCTs compared site-specific vaginal repair versus midline fascial plication (n = 74), absorbable graft versus native tissue repair (n = 132), synthetic graft versus native tissue repair (n = 191), and levator ani plication versus midline fascial plication (n = 52). Data were scanty, and evidence was insufficient to show any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of any of these interventions. The mesh exposure rate in the synthetic group compared with the native tissue group was 7%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal repair may be more effective than transanal repair for posterior wall prolapse in preventing recurrence of prolapse, in the light of both objective and subjective measures. However, data on adverse effects were scanty. Evidence was insufficient to permit any conclusions about the relative effectiveness or safety of other types of surgery. Evidence does not support the utilisation of any mesh or graft materials at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market may limit the generalisability of our findings.

Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse

BACKGROUND

To minimise the rate of recurrent prolapse after traditional native tissue repair (anterior colporrhaphy), clinicians have utilised a variety of surgical techniques.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of surgery for anterior compartment prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process (23 August 2016), handsearched journals and conference proceedings (15 February 2016) and searched trial registers (1 August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that examined surgical operations for anterior compartment prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse on examination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 33 trials (3332 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. We have summarised results for the main comparisons. Native tissue versus biological graft Awareness of prolapse: Evidence suggested few or no differences between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.82; five RCTs; 552 women; I2 = 39%; low-quality evidence), indicating that if 12% of women were aware of prolapse after biological graft, 7% to 23% would be aware after native tissue repair. Repeat surgery for prolapse: Results showed no probable differences between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.97; seven RCTs; 650 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), indicating that if 4% of women required repeat surgery after biological graft, 2% to 9% would do so after native tissue repair. Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse: Native tissue repair probably increased the risk of recurrence (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; eight RCTs; 701 women; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), indicating that if 26% of women had recurrent prolapse after biological graft, 27% to 42% would have recurrence after native tissue repair. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI): Results showed no probable differences between groups (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.64; two RCTs; 218 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Dyspareunia: Evidence suggested few or no differences between groups (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.93; two RCTs; 151 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Native tissue versus polypropylene mesh Awareness of prolapse: This was probably more likely after native tissue repair (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.28; nine RCTs; 1133 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 13% of women were aware of prolapse after mesh repair, 18% to 30% would be aware of prolapse after native tissue repair. Repeat surgery for prolapse: This was probably more likely after native tissue repair (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.58; 12 RCTs; 1629 women; I2 = 39%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 2% of women needed repeat surgery after mesh repair, 2% to 7% would do so after native tissue repair. Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse: This was probably more likely after native tissue repair (RR 3.01, 95% CI 2.52 to 3.60; 16 RCTs; 1976 women; I2 = 39%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if recurrent prolapse occurred in 13% of women after mesh repair, 32% to 45% would have recurrence after native tissue repair. Repeat surgery for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence or mesh exposure (composite outcome): This was probably less likely after native tissue repair (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.83; 12 RCTs; 1527 women; I2 = 45%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 10% of women require repeat surgery after polypropylene mesh repair, 4% to 8% would do so after native tissue repair. De novo SUI: Evidence suggested few or no differences between groups (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.01; six RCTs; 957 women; I2 = 26%; low-quality evidence). No evidence suggested a difference in rates of repeat surgery for SUI. Dyspareunia (de novo): Evidence suggested few or no differences between groups (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.06; eight RCTs; n = 583; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Native tissue versus absorbable mesh Awareness of prolapse: It is unclear whether results showed any differences between groups (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.31; one RCT; n = 54; very low-quality evidence), Repeat surgery for prolapse: It is unclear whether results showed any differences between groups (RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.42 to 10.82; one RCT; n = 66; very low-quality evidence). Recurrent anterior compartment prolapse: This is probably more likely after native tissue repair (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.06; three RCTs; n = 268; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 27% have recurrent prolapse after mesh repair, 29% to 55% would have recurrent prolapse after native tissue repair. SUI: It is unclear whether results showed any differences between groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.05; one RCT; n = 49; very low-quality evidence). Dyspareunia: No data were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biological graft repair or absorbable mesh provides minimal advantage compared with native tissue repair.Native tissue repair was associated with increased awareness of prolapse and increased risk of repeat surgery for prolapse and recurrence of anterior compartment prolapse compared with polypropylene mesh repair. However, native tissue repair was associated with reduced risk of de novo SUI, reduced bladder injury, and reduced rates of repeat surgery for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence and mesh exposure (composite outcome).Current evidence does not support the use of mesh repair compared with native tissue repair for anterior compartment prolapse owing to increased morbidity.Many transvaginal polypropylene meshes have been voluntarily removed from the market, and newer light-weight transvaginal meshes that are available have not been assessed by RCTs. Clinicans and women should be cautious when utilising these products, as their safety and efficacy have not been established.

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Apical vaginal prolapse is a descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available and there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched July 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched January 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 RCTs (3414 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence quality ranged from low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodological reporting and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures versus sacral colpopexy (six RCTs, n = 583; one to four-year review). Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.21, 3 RCTs, n = 277, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). If 7% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 14% (7% to 27%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Repeat surgery for prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.32; 4 RCTs, n = 383, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 4% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, between 5% and 18% would require it after vaginal procedures.We found no conclusive evidence that vaginal procedures increaserepeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) (RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.86; 4 RCTs, n = 395; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). If 3% of women require repeat surgery for SUI after sacral colpopexy, between 2% and 16% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Recurrent prolapse is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.70; 4 RCTs, n = 390; I² = 41%, moderate-quality evidence). If 23% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, about 41% (31% to 63%) are likely to do so after vaginal procedures.The effect of vaginal procedures on bladder injury was uncertain (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.36; 5 RCTs, n = 511; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). SUI was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Dyspareunia was also more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.50; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I² = 43%, low-quality evidence). Vaginal surgery with mesh versus without mesh (6 RCTs, n = 598, 1-3 year review). Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.08 95% CI 0.35 to 3.30 1 RCT n = 54, low quality evidence). The confidence interval was wide suggesting that if 18% of women are aware of prolapse after surgery without mesh, between 6% and 59% will be aware of prolapse after surgery with mesh. Repeat surgery for prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.60; 5 RCTs, n = 497; I² = 9%, low-quality evidence). If 4% of women require repeat surgery for prolapse after surgery without mesh, 1% to 7% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh.We found no conclusive evidence that surgery with mesh increases repeat surgery for SUI (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 27.94; 2 RCTs, n = 220; I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). The confidence interval was wide suggesting that if 2% of women require repeat surgery for SUI after vaginal colpopexy without mesh, 2% to 53% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh.We found no clear evidence that surgery with mesh decreases recurrent prolapse (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.40; 3 RCTs n = 269; I² = 91%, low-quality evidence). The confidence interval was very wide and there was serious inconsistency between the studies. Other outcomes There is probably little or no difference between the groups in rates of SUI (de novo) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.99; 4 RCTs, n = 295; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) or dyspareunia (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.66; 5 RCTs, n = 501; I² = 0% moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is any difference for bladder injury (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 9.89; 4 RCTs, n = 445; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy versus alternatives for uterine prolapse (six studies, n = 667)No clear conclusions could be reached from the available evidence, though one RCT found that awareness of prolapse was less likely after hysterectomy than after abdominal sacrohysteropexy (RR 0.38, 955 CI 0.15 to 0.98, n = 84, moderate-quality evidence).Other comparisonsThere was no evidence of a difference for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (two RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (two RCTs), different routes for sacral colpopexy (four RCTs), or between sacral colpopexy with and without continence surgery (four RCTs).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, postoperative SUI and dyspareunia than a variety of vaginal interventions.The limited evidence does not support use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. Most of the evaluated transvaginal meshes are no longer available and new lighter meshes currently lack evidence of safetyThe evidence was inconclusive when comparing access routes for sacral colpopexy.No clear conclusion can be reached from the available data comparing uterine preserving surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.

Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

A wide variety of grafts have been introduced with the aim of improving the outcomes of traditional native tissue repair (colporrhaphy) for vaginal prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal mesh or biological grafts compared to native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ongoing trials registers, and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (6 July 2015). We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of vaginal repair (mesh, biological graft, or native tissue).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery, and recurrent prolapse on examination.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 RCTs (4023 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were poor reporting of study methods, inconsistency, and imprecision. Permanent mesh versus native tissue repairAwareness of prolapse at one to three years was less likely after mesh repair (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.81, 12 RCTs, n = 1614, I(2) = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 19% of women are aware of prolapse after native tissue repair, between 10% and 15% will be aware of prolapse after permanent mesh repair.Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were lower in the mesh group (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.88, 12 RCTs, n = 1675, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of repeat surgery for continence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.83, 9 RCTs, n = 1284, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). More women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for the combined outcome of prolapse, stress incontinence, or mesh exposure (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.81, 7 RCTs, n = 867, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if 5% of women require repeat surgery after native tissue repair, between 7% and 18% in the permanent mesh group will do so. Eight per cent of women in the mesh group required repeat surgery for mesh exposure.Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely after mesh repair (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53, 21 RCTs, n = 2494, I(2) = 73%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if 38% of women have recurrent prolapse after native tissue repair, between 11% and 20% will do so after mesh repair.Permanent mesh was associated with higher rates of de novo stress incontinence (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.82, 12 RCTs, 1512 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence) and bladder injury (RR 3.92, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.50, 11 RCTs, n = 1514, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of de novo dyspareunia (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.47, 11 RCTs, n = 764, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence). Effects on quality of life were uncertain due to the very low-quality evidence. Absorbable mesh versus native tissue repairThere was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair at two years on the rate of awareness of prolapse (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.44, 1 RCT, n = 54).There was very low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of either form of repair on the rate of repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.40, 1 RCT, n = 66).Recurrent prolapse on examination was less likely in the mesh group (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, 3 RCTs, n = 292, I(2) = 21%, low-quality evidence)The effect of either form of repair was uncertain for urinary outcomes, dyspareunia, and quality of life. Biological graft versus native tissue repairThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups at one to three years for the outcome awareness of prolapse (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43, 7 RCTs, n = 777, low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for the outcome repeat surgery for prolapse (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.44, 5 RCTs, n = 306, I(2) = 8%, low-quality evidence).The effect of either approach was very uncertain for recurrent prolapse (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.47, 7 RCTs, n = 587, I(2) = 59%, very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between the groups for dyspareunia or quality of life outcomes (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While transvaginal permanent mesh is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, reoperation for prolapse, and prolapse on examination than native tissue repair, it is also associated with higher rates of reoperation for prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, or mesh exposure and higher rates of bladder injury at surgery and de novo stress urinary incontinence. The risk-benefit profile means that transvaginal mesh has limited utility in primary surgery. While it is possible that in women with higher risk of recurrence the benefits may outweigh the risks, there is currently no evidence to support this position.Limited evidence suggests that absorbable mesh may reduce rates of recurrent prolapse on examination compared to native tissue repair, but there was insufficient evidence on absorbable mesh for us to draw any conclusions for other outcomes. There was also insufficient evidence for us to draw any conclusions regarding biological grafts compared to native tissue repair.In 2011, many transvaginal permanent meshes were voluntarily withdrawn from the market, and the newer, lightweight transvaginal permanent meshes still available have not been evaluated within a RCT. In the meantime, these newer transvaginal meshes should be utilised under the discretion of the ethics committee.

Effect of vaginal delivery on the external anal sphincter muscle innervation pattern evaluated by multichannel surface EMG: results of the multicentre study TASI-2

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

A correlation exists between external anal sphincter (EAS) damage during birth and the subsequent development of fecal incontinence. This study evaluated the effect of delivery-related trauma on EAS innervation by means of intra-anal EMG performed with a rectal probe with 16 silver electrodes equally spaced along the circumference, before and after delivery.

METHODS

Pre-partum EMG measurements were performed on 511 women, by nine clinical partners from five European countries at the 28th to 34th gestational weeks and the 6th to 8th post-delivery weeks; 331 women returned, after delivery, for the second test. The innervation zones (IZ) of EAS single motor units were identified by means of an EMG decomposition algorithm.

RESULTS

The subjects were divided into four groups according to the delivery mode (Caesarean, vaginal with no evident damage, spontaneous lacerations and episiotomies). The number of IZs before and after delivery was compared. In the 82 women who underwent right mediolateral episiotomy, a statistically significant reduction of IZs was observed, after delivery, in the right ventral quadrant of the EAS (side of the episiotomy). Women who had Caesarean section, spontaneous lacerations or lack of evident damage did not present any significant change in the innervation pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Right episiotomy reduces the number of IZs on the right-ventral side of the EAS. The fast and reliable test proposed indicates the sphincter innervation pattern before delivery and helps obstetricians to evaluate the risks and to choose the preferred side of the episiotomy, if deemed necessary at the time of delivery.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with the prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of the many different surgeries used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings, healthcare-related bibliographic databases, handsearched conference proceedings (searched 20 August 2012), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two review authors. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-six randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 5954 women. For upper vaginal prolapse (uterine or vault) abdominal sacral colpopexy was associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse on examination and painful intercourse than with vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. In single studies the sacral colpopexy had a higher success rate on examination and lower reoperation rate than high vaginal uterosacral suspension and transvaginal polypropylene mesh.Twenty-one trials compared a variety of surgical procedures for anterior compartment prolapse (cystocele). Ten compared native tissue repair with graft (absorbable and permanent mesh, biological grafts) repair for anterior compartment prolapse. Native tissue anterior repair was associated with more recurrent anterior compartment prolapse than when supplemented with a polyglactin (absorbable) mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.01), however there was no difference in post-operative awareness of prolapse after absorbable mesh (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.81) or a biological graft (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.30). Data on morbidity and other clinical outcomes were lacking. Standard anterior repair was associated with more anterior compartment prolapse on examination than for any polypropylene (permanent) mesh repair (RR 3.15, 95% CI 2.50 to 3.96). Awareness of prolapse was also higher after the anterior repair as compared to polypropylene mesh repair (28% versus 18%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.07). However, the reoperation rate for prolapse was similar at 14/459 (3%) after the native tissue repair compared to 6/470 (1.3%) (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.10) after the anterior polypropylene mesh repair and no differences in quality of life data or de novo dyspareunia were identified. Blood loss (MD 64 ml, 95% CI 48 to 81), operating time (MD 19 min, 95% CI 16 to 21), recurrences in apical or posterior compartment (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4) and de novo stress urinary incontinence (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.1) were significantly higher with transobturator meshes than for native tissue anterior repair. Mesh erosions were reported in 11.4% (64/563), with surgical interventions being performed in 6.8% (32/470).Data from three trials compared native tissue repairs with a variety of total, anterior, or posterior polypropylene kit meshes for vaginal prolapse in multiple compartments. While no difference in awareness of prolapse was able to be identified between the groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.7) the recurrence rate on examination was higher in the native tissue repair group compared to the transvaginal polypropylene mesh group (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1). The mesh erosion rate was 35/194 (18%), and 18/194 (9%) underwent surgical correction for mesh erosion. The reoperation rate after transvaginal polypropylene mesh repair of 22/194 (11%) was higher than after the native tissue repair (7/189, 3.7%) (RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 7.3).Data from three trials compared posterior vaginal repair and transanal repair for the treatment of posterior compartment prolapse (rectocele). The posterior vaginal repair had fewer recurrent prolapse symptoms (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.0) and lower recurrence on examination (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) and on defecography (MD -1.2 cm, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.3).Sixteen trials included significant data on bladder outcomes following a variety of prolapse surgeries. Women undergoing prolapse surgery may have benefited from having continence surgery performed concomitantly, especially if they had stress urinary incontinence (RR 7.4, 95% CI 4.0 to 14) or if they were continent and had occult stress urinary incontinence demonstrated pre-operatively (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 6.6). Following prolapse surgery, 12% of women developed de novo symptoms of bladder overactivity and 9% de novo voiding dysfunction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sacral colpopexy has superior outcomes to a variety of vaginal procedures including sacrospinous colpopexy, uterosacral colpopexy and transvaginal mesh. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living, and increased cost of the abdominal approach.The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduces the risk of recurrent anterior wall prolapse on examination. Anterior vaginal polypropylene mesh also reduces awareness of prolapse, however these benefits must be weighted against increased operating time, blood loss, rate of apical or posterior compartment prolapse, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation rate for mesh exposures associated with the use of polypropylene mesh.Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectocele in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The evidence is not supportive of any grafts at the time of posterior vaginal repair. Adequately powered randomised, controlled clinical trials with blinding of assessors are urgently needed on a wide variety of issues, and they particularly need to include women's perceptions of prolapse symptoms. Following the withdrawal of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market, the generalisability of the findings, especially relating to anterior compartment transvaginal mesh, should be interpreted with caution.

Selection of patients in whom vaginal graft use may be appropriate. Consensus of the 2nd IUGA Grafts Roundtable: optimizing safety and appropriateness of graft use in transvaginal pelvic reconstructive surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The recent rapid and widespread adoption of the use of mesh, and mesh-based surgical kits for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery has occurred largely unchecked, and is now being subjected to critical analysis and re-evaluation.

METHODS

There have been multiple driving forces for this phenomenon, including aggressive marketing by surgical device manufacturing companies, contagious hype among pelvic surgeons and regulatory processes which facilitated relatively rapid marketing of new devices.

RESULTS

Patient-related factors such as indications for mesh use, expected risks and benefits relative to mesh implantation, and appropriately selected outcome measures have been slow to be defined.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript reviews the currently available literature in the use of grafts and mesh in POP surgery with a focus on identifying situations where graft use may be appropriate for an individual patient. It also identifies specific clinical situations where mesh use may not be recommended.

Pelvic pain in urogynecology. Part II: treatment options in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms

Therapeutic options for chronic pelvic pain in women offer only a limited symptom relief. Especially in the patient with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), where overlap of pain, storage and voiding symptoms is common, data on the efficacy of treatment of pain are limited. We conducted a literature review to detect articles which pertained to female patients with LUTS and pelvic pain and we included articles which evaluated the efficacy of the treatment of pelvic pain. Forty-one articles were detected, which included nerve stimulation (sacral and pudendal), intravesical instillations and injections, oral pharmacological treatments, periurethral injections as well as physical and manual therapy as treatment options. Only five controlled trials were found, which did not show superiority of the active treatment versus placebo. Although some treatment options show promising results in the treatment of pelvic pain in patients with LUTS, more randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm these results.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

A previous version of the Cochrane review for prolapse surgery in 2008 provided two conclusions: abdominal sacrocolpopexy had lower recurrent vault prolapse rates than sacrospinous colpopexy but this was balanced against a longer time to return to activities of daily life. An additional continence procedure at the time of prolapse surgery might be beneficial in reducing post-operative stress urinary incontinence; however, this was weighed against potential adverse effects. The aim of this review is to provide an updated summary version of the current Cochrane review on the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register and reference lists of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Trials were assessed independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

We identified 40 trials including 18 new and three updates. There were no additional studies on surgery for posterior prolapse. Native tissue anterior repair was associated with more anterior compartment failures than polypropylene mesh repair as an overlay (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.23-3.74) or armed transobturator mesh (RR 3.55, 95% CI 2.29-5.51). There were no differences in subjective outcomes, quality of life data, de novo dyspareunia, stress urinary incontinence, reoperation rates for prolapse or incontinence, although some of these data were limited. Mesh erosions were reported in 10% (30/293). Including new studies on the impact of continence surgery at the time of prolapse surgery, meta-analysis revealed that concurrent continence surgery did not significantly reduce the rate of post-operative stress urinary incontinence (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.53-3.70; random-effects model).

CONCLUSION

The inclusion of new randomised controlled trials showed that the use of mesh at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduced the risk of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse on examination. However, this was not translated into improved functional or quality of life outcomes. The value of a continence procedure in addition to a prolapse operation in women who are continent pre-operatively remains uncertain. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials are needed and should particularly include women's perceptions of prolapse symptoms and functional outcome.

Pelvic pain in urogynaecology. Part I: evaluation, definitions and diagnoses

Aim of this review is to summarise the available literature on the definitions and assessment of pelvic pain in the urogynaecological patient. A MEDLINE search and a hand search of conference proceedings of the International Continence Society and International Urogynecological Association were performed. Sixty-nine articles were reviewed. The site of pain was specified in 45% of the articles, 20% used the digital examination of pelvic myofascial trigger points for the diagnosis; 20%, the Pelvic Pain and Urgency/Frequency Symptom Scale; 26%, the Interstitial Cystitis Symptom and Problem Index and 39%, a simple visual analogue scale. The diagnosis was interstitial cystitis in 67% and chronic pelvic pain in 19% of the articles. Consensus on the diagnostic procedures and definition of pelvic pain in the urogynaecological patient should be achieved in order to provide exact diagnostic information which will lead to more satisfying treatment options.

[Validation of a comprehensive pelvic floor questionnaire for the hospital, private practice and research]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to validate a German pelvic floor questionnaire that integrates bladder, bowel and sexual function, pelvic organ prolapse, severity, bothersomeness and condition-specific quality of life.

METHODS

Full psychometric testing of a self- and an interviewer-administered questionnaire was performed in 63 urogynaecological patients.

RESULTS

Missing data did not exceed 4% for any question. The questionnaire clearly distinguished between urogynaecological and other gynaecological (n = 24) populations. Urodynamics, stress test and prolapse quantification correlated with the questionnaire. Cronbach's C values in the self- and interviewer-administered questionnaires were: bladder domain 0.86 and 0.77, bowel function 0.76 and 0.77, prolapse symptoms 0.82 and 0.83, sexual function 0.80 and 0.71. kappa values in the test-retest analyses varied from 0.61 to 1.0.

CONCLUSIONS

The pelvic floor questionnaire assessed all aspects of pelvic floor function in a reproducible and valid fashion.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with the prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of the many different surgeries used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (9 February 2009) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two review authors. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 3773 women. Abdominal sacral colpopexy was better than vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy in terms of a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77) and less dyspareunia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86). However there was no statistically significant difference in re-operation rates for prolapse (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11). The vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy was quicker and cheaper to perform and women had an earlier return to activities of daily living. The three trials contributing to this analysis were clinically heterogeneous.For anterior vaginal wall prolapse, standard anterior repair was associated with more recurrent cystoceles than when supplemented with a polyglactin mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.14); but data on morbidity and other clinical outcomes were lacking. Standard anterior repair was associated with more anterior compartment failures on examination than for polypropylene mesh repair as an overlay (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.74) or armed transobturator mesh (RR 3.55, 95% CI 2.29 to 5.51). Data relating to polypropylene mesh overlay were extracted from conference abstracts without any peer reviewed manuscripts available and should be interpreted with caution. No differences in subjective outcomes, quality of life data, de novo dyspareunia, stress incontinence, re-operation rates for prolapse or incontinence were identified. Blood loss with transobturator meshes was significantly higher than for native tissue anterior repair. Mesh erosions were reported in 10% (30/293) of anterior repairs with polypropylene mesh.For posterior vaginal wall prolapse, the vaginal approach was associated with a lower rate of recurrent rectocele or enterocele, or both, than the transanal approach (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.64); although there was a higher blood loss and post-operative narcotic use. No data exist on efficacy or otherwise of polypropylene mesh in the posterior vaginal compartment.Meta-analysis on the impact of continence surgery at the time of prolapse surgery was performed with data from seven studies. Continence surgery at the time of prolapse surgery in continent women did not significantly reduce the rate of post-operative stress urinary incontinence (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.70; random-effects model).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal sacral colpopexy was associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse and dyspareunia than with vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduces the risk of recurrent anterior wall prolapse, on examination. Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectoceles in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The value of the addition of a continence procedure to a prolapse repair operation in women who are dry before operation remains to be assessed. Adequately powered randomised controlled clinical trials are urgently needed on a wide variety of issues and particularly need to include women's perceptions of prolapse symptoms.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with the prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of the many different surgeries used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (9 February 2009) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two review authors. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 3773 women. Abdominal sacral colpopexy was better than vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy in terms of a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77) and less dyspareunia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86). However there was no statistically significant difference in re-operation rates for prolapse (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11). The vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy was quicker and cheaper to perform and women had an earlier return to activities of daily living. The three trials contributing to this analysis were clinically heterogeneous.For anterior vaginal wall prolapse, standard anterior repair was associated with more recurrent cystoceles than when supplemented with a polyglactin mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.14); but data on morbidity and other clinical outcomes were lacking. Standard anterior repair was associated with more anterior compartment failures on examination than for polypropylene mesh repair as an overlay (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.74) or armed transobturator mesh (RR 3.55, 95% CI 2.29 to 5.51). Data relating to polypropylene mesh overlay were extracted from conference abstracts without any peer reviewed manuscripts available and should be interpreted with caution. No differences in subjective outcomes, quality of life data, de novo dyspareunia, stress incontinence, re-operation rates for prolapse or incontinence were identified. Blood loss with transobturator meshes was significantly higher than for native tissue anterior repair. Mesh erosions were reported in 10% (30/293) of anterior repairs with polypropylene mesh.For posterior vaginal wall prolapse, the vaginal approach was associated with a lower rate of recurrent rectocele or enterocele, or both, than the transanal approach (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.64); although there was a higher blood loss and post-operative narcotic use. No data exist on efficacy or otherwise of polypropylene mesh in the posterior vaginal compartment.Meta-analysis on the impact of continence surgery at the time of prolapse surgery was performed with data from seven studies. Continence surgery at the time of prolapse surgery in continent women did not significantly reduce the rate of post-operative stress urinary incontinence (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.70; random-effects model).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal sacral colpopexy was associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse and dyspareunia than with vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduces the risk of recurrent anterior wall prolapse, on examination. Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectoceles in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The value of the addition of a continence procedure to a prolapse repair operation in women who are dry before operation remains to be assessed. Adequately powered randomised controlled clinical trials are urgently needed on a wide variety of issues and particularly need to include women's perceptions of prolapse symptoms.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: a short version Cochrane review

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of the many different surgeries in the management of pelvic organ prolapse.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 3 May 2006) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 2368 women. Abdominal sacral colpopexy was better than vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy in terms of a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77) and less dyspareunia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86), but the trend towards a lower re-operation rate for prolapse following abdominal sacrocolpopexy was not statistically significant (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11). However, the vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy was quicker and cheaper to perform and women had an earlier return to activities of daily living. The data were too few to evaluate other clinical outcomes and adverse events. The three trials contributing to this comparison were clinically heterogeneous. For the anterior vaginal wall prolapse, standard anterior repair was associated with more recurrent cystoceles than when supplemented by polyglactin mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.14), but data on morbidity, other clinical outcomes and for other mesh or graft materials were too few for reliable comparisons. For posterior vaginal wall prolapse, the vaginal approach was associated with a lower rate of recurrent rectocele and/or enterocele than the transanal approach (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.64), although there was a higher blood loss and postoperative narcotic use. However, data on the effect of surgery on bowel symptoms and the use of polyglactin mesh inlay or porcine small intestine graft inlay on the risk of recurrent rectocele were insufficient for meta-analysis.Meta-analysis on the impact of pelvic organ prolapse surgery on continence issues was limited and inconclusive, although about 10% of women developed new urinary symptoms after surgery. Although the addition of tension-free vaginal tape to endopelvic fascia plication (RR 5.5, 95% CI 1.36 to 22.32) and Burch colposuspension to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.24) were followed by a lower risk of women developing new postoperative stress incontinence, but other outcomes, particularly economic, remain to be evaluated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse and dyspareunia than the vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair may reduce the risk of recurrent cystocele. Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectoceles in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The addition of a continence procedure to a prolapse repair operation may reduce the incidence of postoperative urinary incontinence but this benefit needs to be balanced against possible differences in costs and adverse effects. Adequately powered randomised controlled clinical trials are urgently needed.

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated with prolapse.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of the many different surgeries in the management of pelvic organ prolapse.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (searched 3 May 2006) and reference lists of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Six investigators were contacted for additional information with five responding.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty two randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 2368 women. Abdominal sacral colpopexy was better than vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy in terms of a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.77) and less dyspareunia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86), but the trend towards a lower re-operation rate for prolapse following abdominal sacrocolpopexy was not statistically significant (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11). However, the vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy was quicker and cheaper to perform and women had an earlier return to activities of daily living. The data were too few to evaluate other clinical outcomes and adverse events. The three trials contributing to this comparison were clinically heterogeneous. For the anterior vaginal wall prolapse, standard anterior repair was associated with more recurrent cystoceles than when supplemented by polyglactin mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.14), but data on morbidity, other clinical outcomes and for other mesh or graft materials were too few for reliable comparisons. For posterior vaginal wall prolapse, the vaginal approach was associated with a lower rate of recurrent rectocele and/or enterocele than the transanal approach (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.64), although there was a higher blood loss and postoperative narcotic use. However, data on the effect of surgery on bowel symptoms and the use of polyglactin mesh inlay or porcine small intestine graft inlay on the risk of recurrent rectocele were insufficient for meta-analysis.Meta-analysis on the impact of pelvic organ prolapse surgery on continence issues was limited and inconclusive, although about 10% of women developed new urinary symptoms after surgery. Although the addition of tension-free vaginal tape to endopelvic fascia plication (RR 5.5, 95% CI 1.36 to 22.32) and Burch colposuspension to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.24) were followed by a lower risk of women developing new postoperative stress incontinence, but other outcomes, particularly economic, remain to be evaluated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse and dyspareunia than the vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair may reduce the risk of recurrent cystocele. Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management of rectoceles in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The addition of a continence procedure to a prolapse repair operation may reduce the incidence of postoperative urinary incontinence but this benefit needs to be balanced against possible differences in costs and adverse effects. Adequately powered randomised controlled clinical trials are urgently needed.

Mesh augmentation during pelvic-floor reconstructive surgery: risks and benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Synthetic meshes are increasingly used in the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence and pelvic-organ prolapse in an attempt to improve success rates and increase the longevity of repairs. This review describes and analyses complications following pelvic-floor procedures employing synthetic meshes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Type I monofilament polypropylene mesh with a large pore size is currently the mesh of choice. Chronic inflammation is a typical host response, whereas acute inflammation and predominant CD20+ lymphocyte infiltration represent an adverse host reaction and may result in defective healing. Mesh properties influence the performance and complication rate. Mesh-related complications after midurethral slings and mesh sacrocolpopexies with monofilament polypropylene are rare. An up to 26% mesh erosion rate and up to 38% dyspareunia rate with vaginally introduced mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse repair has been reported. Concurrent hysterectomy seems to increase mesh erosion rates.

SUMMARY

Surgeons should be aware of the potential complications of synthetic meshes. Until data on the safety and efficacy of synthetic mesh in vaginal reconstructive surgery emerge, its routine use outside of clinical trials cannot be recommended.

Anatomy of the sigmoid colon, rectum, and the rectovaginal pouch in women with enterocele and anterior rectal wall procidentia

This study describes the anatomy of the rectovaginal pouch, the sigmoid colon, and rectum in women with posterior enterocele and anterior rectal wall procidentia. The anatomy of rectovaginal pouch, sigmoid colon, and rectum was described in 36 women with an enterocele (group A) and compared with those of 43 women (group B) without pelvic organ prolapse. Women with previous incontinence or prolapse surgery were excluded. The mean age in group A was 58 years (40-75) and in group B 35 years (19-64; P < 0.001). There were 15 nulliparas in group B. Nine women in group A had an internal anterior rectal wall procidentia, and one woman had an external anterior rectal wall procidentia. In group A, the rectovaginal pouch was significantly deeper, the sigmoid mesocolon at S1 shorter and showed more often a straight course (P < 0.05). These characteristics (termed "grande fosse pelvienne") were present in 23 women (64%) in group A and in 6 (14%) in group B, three of the latter were young nulliparas (P < 0.001). Age, parity, menopausal status, body mass index, constipation, and varicose veins were not associated with a grande fosse pelvienne. The typical anatomy in women with an enterocele and anterior rectal wall procidentia was a sigmoid colon with a straight course and a short mesentery at S1 and a rectovaginal pouch that covered more than half of the vaginal length. It may be a congenital condition and important in the development of an enterocele and rectal wall procidentia.