The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3493-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users
Results were presented at a previous conference: Poster EUGA, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
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.
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.
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.
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.
Roovers JP, Everhardt E, Dietz V, Milani F, et al. Richtlijn prolapse van de nederlandse vereniging obstetrie en gynaecologie. Dutch Society of Obsetrics and Gynaecology. www.nvog.nl. 2017.
Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Vierhout ME, van Eijndhoven HWF. Uterussparende chirurgie versus vaginale hysterectomie als behandeling van descensus uteri. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2011;155:A3623. PubMed
Woodruff AJ, Christopher CR, Winters JC. Abdominal sacral colpopexy: surgical pearls and outcomes. Female Urol. 2007;8:399–404.
Maher C. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:10.
Toozs-Hobson P, Boos K, Cardozo L, et al. Management of vaginal vault prolapse. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;105(10):1127–8. CrossRef
Higgins, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Version 5.1.0.
Coolen ALWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5. PubMedCentral
Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Omson A, et al. A randomized controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013;24(3):377–84. CrossRef
Halaska M, Maxova K, Sottner O, Svabik K, Mlcoch M, Kolarik D, et al. A multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing sacrospinous fixation and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(4):301.e1–7. CrossRef
Svabik K, Martan A, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Hubka P. Comparison of vaginal mesh repair with sacrospinous vaginal colpopexy in the management of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy in patients with levator ani avulsion: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:365–71. CrossRefPubMed
Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:360.e1–7. CrossRef
Stanford EJ, Moore RD, Roovers JP, et al. Elevate and uterine preservation: two-year results. Female Pelvic Med Renconstr Surg. 2015;21(4):205–10. CrossRef
Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper KG, Freeman RM, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–92. CrossRefPubMed
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;1:10.
- The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Anne-Lotte W. M. Coolen
Bich Ngoc Bui
Aafke P. A. van Montfoort
Ben Willem J. Mol
Jan-Paul W. R. Roovers
Marlies Y. Bongers
- Springer London
Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet
Mail Icon II