9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction and hypothesis

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

          Methods

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

          Results

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

          Conclusions

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

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s00192-017-3493-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.

          This article presents a standard system of terminology recently approved by the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons for the description of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. An objective site-specific system for describing, quantitating, and staging pelvic support in women is included. It has been developed to enhance both clinical and academic communication regarding individual patients and populations of patients. Clinicians and researchers caring for women with pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction are encouraged to learn and use the system.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy.

            Our aim was to understand how vaginal eversion after hysterectomy differs from other forms of prolapse. The role of individual structures involved in vaginal support was studied by pelvic dissection of 61 cadavers. Serial cross sections from 13 additional cadavers were examined. The upper third of the vagina (level I) is suspended from the pelvic walls by vertical fibers of the paracolpium, which is a continuation of the cardinal ligament. In the middle third of the vagina (level II) the paracolpium attaches the vagina laterally to the arcus tendineus and fascia of the levator ani muscles. The vagina's lower third fuses with the perineal membrane, levator ani muscles, and perineal body (level III). Dissection reveals that the paracolpium's vertical fibers in level I prevented prolapse of the vaginal apex and vaginal eversion. The paracolpium in level I forms the critical factor that differentiates vaginal eversion from posthysterectomy cystocele-rectocele or enterocele in which the vaginal apex remains well suspended.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse.

              The use of standardized mesh kits for repair of pelvic-organ prolapse has spread rapidly in recent years, but it is unclear whether this approach results in better outcomes than traditional colporrhaphy. In this multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial, we compared the use of a trocar-guided, transvaginal polypropylene-mesh repair kit with traditional colporrhaphy in women with prolapse of the anterior vaginal wall (cystocele). The primary outcome was a composite of the objective anatomical designation of stage 0 (no prolapse) or 1 (position of the anterior vaginal wall more than 1 cm above the hymen), according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system, and the subjective absence of symptoms of vaginal bulging 12 months after the surgery. Of 389 women who were randomly assigned to a study treatment, 200 underwent prolapse repair with the transvaginal mesh kit and 189 underwent traditional colporrhaphy. At 1 year, the primary outcome was significantly more common in the women treated with transvaginal mesh repair (60.8%) than in those who underwent colporrhaphy (34.5%) (absolute difference, 26.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 15.6 to 37.0). The surgery lasted longer and the rates of intraoperative hemorrhage were higher in the mesh-repair group than in the colporrhaphy group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of bladder perforation were 3.5% in the mesh-repair group and 0.5% in the colporrhaphy group (P=0.07), and the respective rates of new stress urinary incontinence after surgery were 12.3% and 6.3% (P=0.05). Surgical reintervention to correct mesh exposure during follow-up occurred in 3.2% of 186 patients in the mesh-repair group. As compared with anterior colporrhaphy, use of a standardized, trocar-guided mesh kit for cystocele repair resulted in higher short-term rates of successful treatment but also in higher rates of surgical complications and postoperative adverse events. (Funded by the Karolinska Institutet and Ethicon; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00566917.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +31-40-8888384 , anne_lotte_coolen@hotmail.com
                Journal
                Int Urogynecol J
                Int Urogynecol J
                International Urogynecology Journal
                Springer London (London )
                0937-3462
                1433-3023
                16 October 2017
                16 October 2017
                2017
                : 28
                : 12
                : 1767-1783
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0477 4812, GRID grid.414711.6, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, , Máxima Medical Centre, ; De Run 4600, 5500 MB Veldhoven, The Netherlands
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0398 8384, GRID grid.413532.2, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, , Catharina Hospital, ; Michelangelolaan 2, 5623 EJ Eindhoven, The Netherlands
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7304, GRID grid.1010.0, Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, , University of Adelaide, ; Adelaide, SA Australia
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0481 6099, GRID grid.5012.6, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, , Maastricht University, Grow School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, ; Minderbroedersberg 4, 6211 LK Maastricht, The Netherlands
                [5 ]ISNI 0000000404654431, GRID grid.5650.6, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, , Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, ; Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0056-0804
                Article
                3493
                10.1007/s00192-017-3493-2
                5705749
                29038834
                605261ae-c330-47ce-94b7-c3850e30c9ea
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 13 May 2017
                : 13 September 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Maastricht University
                Categories
                Review Article
                Custom metadata
                © The International Urogynecological Association 2017

                Obstetrics & Gynecology
                vaginal vault prolapse,pelvic organ prolapse,treatment,surgical treatment,sacrocolpopexy,trans vaginal mesh,sacrospinous fixation

                Comments

                Comment on this article