Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 20:70 | Cite as

Prolapse Repair Using Non-synthetic Material: What is the Current Standard?

  • Ricardo PalmerolaEmail author
  • Nirit Rosenblum
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms & Voiding Dysfunction (J Sandhu, Section Editor)
  • 122 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms & Voiding Dysfunction

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Due to recent concerns over the use of synthetic mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, there has been a renewed interest in the utilization of non-synthetic repairs for pelvic organ prolapse. The purpose of this review is to review the current literature regarding pelvic organ prolapse repairs performed without the utilization of synthetic mesh.

Recent Findings

Native tissue repairs provide a durable surgical option for pelvic organ prolapse. Based on recent findings of recently performed randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up, transvaginal native tissue repair continues to play a role in the management of pelvic organ prolapse without the added risk associated with synthetic mesh.

Summary

In 2019, the FDA called for manufacturers of synthetic mesh for transvaginal mesh to stop selling and distributing their products in the USA. Native tissue and non-synthetic pelvic organ prolapse repairs provide an efficacious alternative without the added risk inherent to the utilization of transvaginal mesh. A recent, multicenter, randomized clinical trial demonstrated no clear advantage to the utilization of synthetic mesh. Furthermore, transvaginal native tissue repairs have demonstrated good long-term efficacy, particularly when anatomic success is not the sole metric used to define surgical success.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Cystocele Enterocele Rectocele Synthetic mesh Transvaginal mesh Uterosacral ligament suspension Sacrospinous ligament fixation Native tissue prolapse repair 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Ricardo Palmerola and Nirit Rosenblum each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walker GJ, Gunasekera P. Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(2):127–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rortveit G, Brown JS, Thom DH, Van Den Eeden SK, Creasman JM, Subak LL. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: prevalence and risk factors in a population-based, racially diverse cohort. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(6):1396–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse in a Swedish population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005;16(6):497–503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blomquist JL, Munoz A, Carroll M, Handa VL. Association of delivery mode with pelvic floor disorders after childbirth. JAMA. 2018;320(23):2438–47.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mothes AR, Radosa MP, Altendorf-Hofmann A, Runnebaum IB. Risk index for pelvic organ prolapse based on established individual risk factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293(3):617–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559–73.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver R. Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(10):1157–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiegersma M, Panman CM, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-Van Leeuwen Y, Dekker JH. Effect of pelvic floor muscle training compared with watchful waiting in older women with symptomatic mild pelvic organ prolapse: randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMJ. 2014;349:g7378.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheung RY, Lee JH, Lee LL, Chung TK, Chan SS. Vaginal pessary in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):73–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hagen S, Stark D, Glazener C, Dickson S, Barry S, Elders A, et al. Individualised pelvic floor muscle training in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POPPY): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9919):796–806.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weber AM, Richter HE. Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(3):615–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Denman MA, Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Smith V, Edwards SR, Clark AL. Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):555 e1–5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
    Clemons JL, Weinstein M, Guess MK, Alperin M, Moalli P, Gregory WT, et al. Impact of the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update on AUGS members’ use of synthetic mesh and biologic grafts in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):191–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siff LN, Barber MD. Native tissue prolapse repairs: comparative effectiveness trials. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2016;43(1):69–81.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Richardson AC, Lyon JB, Williams NL. A new look at pelvic relaxation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1976;126(5):568–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kelly H. Incontinence of urine in women. Urol Cutan Rev. 1913;17:291–3.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weber AM, Walters MD. Anterior vaginal prolapse: review of anatomy and techniques of surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(2):311–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Peters C, Campbell MF, Walsh PC, et al. Campbell-Walsh urology [text]. Available from: ClinicalKey. http://libproxy.tulane.edu:2048/login?url=https://www.clinicalkey.com/dura/browse/bookChapter/3-s2.0-C20121035874. Accessed 2 June 2019
  26. 26.
    Shippey S, Gutman RE, Quiroz LH, Handa VL. Contemporary approaches to cystocele repair: a survey of AUGS members. J Reprod Med. 2008;53(11):832–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shippey SH, Quiroz LH, Sanses TV, Knoepp LR, Cundiff GW, Handa VL. Anatomic outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy with or without paravaginal repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(3):279–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chinthakanan O, Miklos JR, Moore RD. Laparoscopic paravaginal defect repair: surgical technique and a literature review. Surg Technol Int. 2015;27:173–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA. Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1299–304 discussion 304-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C. Nordic Transvaginal Mesh G. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sand PK, Koduri S, Lobel RW, Winkler HA, Tomezsko J, Culligan PJ, et al. Prospective randomized trial of polyglactin 910 mesh to prevent recurrence of cystoceles and rectoceles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(7):1357–62 discussion 62-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bergman I, Soderberg MW, Kjaeldgaard A, Ek M. Does the choice of suture material matter in anterior and posterior colporrhaphy? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(9):1357–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Song HS, Choo GY, Jin LH, Yoon SM, Lee T. Transvaginal cystocele repair by purse-string technique reinforced with three simple sutures: surgical technique and results. Int Neurourol J. 2012;16(3):144–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baden WF, Walker TA. Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1972;15(4):1048–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vigil HR, Mallick R, Nitti VW, Lavallee LT, Breau RH, Hickling DR. Risk factors for urinary tract infection following mid urethral sling surgery. J Urol. 2017;197(5):1268–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lowder JL, Park AJ, Ellison R, Ghetti C, Moalli P, Zyczynski H, et al. The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):152–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, et al. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):981–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hosni MM, El-Feky AE, Agur WI, Khater EM. Evaluation of three different surgical approaches in repairing paravaginal support defects: a comparative trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(6):1341–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Duraisamy KY, Balasubramaniam D, Kakollu A, Chinnusamy P, Periyasamy K. A prospective study of minimally invasive paravaginal repair of cystocele and associated pelvic floor defects: our experience. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019;69(1):82–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    JC Winters AS, R Krlin. Vaginal and abdominal reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. In: AJ Wein LK, A Partin, C Peters, editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 11th edn. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2016. p. 1939–86.e6.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cormio L, Mancini V, Liuzzi G, Lucarelli G, Carrieri G. Cystocele repair by autologous rectus fascia graft: the pubovaginal cystocele sling. J Urol. 2015;194(3):721–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Marjoribanks J. Transvaginal mesh or grafts compared with native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD012079.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    • 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. Provided further high-quality evidence demonstrating no added benefit to utilization of transvaginal mesh. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21(2):167–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Uzoma A, Farag KA. Vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2009;2009:275621.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JO. The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1438–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(1):44–55.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, Kuehl TJ. A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183(6):1365–73 discussion 73-4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bradley MS, Bickhaus JA, Amundsen CL, Newcomb LK, Truong T, Weidner AC, et al. Vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: a retrospective cohort of absorbable and permanent suture groups. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(3):207–12.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Unger CA, Walters MD, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Paraiso MF. Incidence of adverse events after uterosacral colpopexy for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(5):603 e1–7.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Silva WA, Pauls RN, Segal JL, Rooney CM, Kleeman SD, Karram MM. Uterosacral ligament vault suspension: five-year outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(2):255–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Milani R, Frigerio M, Cola A, Beretta C, Spelzini F, Manodoro S. Outcomes of transvaginal high uterosacral ligaments suspension: over 500-patient single-center study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(1):39–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cardozo L, Hessdorfer E, Milani R, Arano P, Dewilde L, Slack M, et al. Solifenacin in the treatment of urgency and other symptoms of overactive bladder: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, rising-dose trial. BJU Int. 2008;102(9):1120–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Unger CA, Barber MD, Walters MD, Paraiso MFR, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE. Long-term effectiveness of uterosacral colpopexy and minimally invasive sacral colpopexy for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(3):188–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Smith BC, Crisp CC, Kleeman SD, Yook E, Pauls RN. Uterosacral ligament suspension versus robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(2):93–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Turner LC, Lavelle ES, Shepherd JP. Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(5):797–803.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Barbier HM, Smith MZ, Eto CU, Welgoss JA, Von Pechmann W, Horbach N, et al. Ureteral compromise in laparoscopic versus vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: a retrospective cohort. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(6):363–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lavelle ES, Giugale LE, Winger DG, Wang L, Carter-Brooks CM, Shepherd JP. Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(1):116 e1–5.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cespedes RD. Anterior approach bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse. Urology. 2000;56(6 Suppl 1):70–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    •• Katrikh AZ, Ettarh R, Kahn MA. Cadaveric nerve and artery proximity to sacrospinous ligament fixation sutures placed by a suture-capturing device. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):1033–8. Provided a detailed description of sacrospinous ligament anatomy and surrounding structures important to surgical anatomy. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Mothes AR, Wanzke L, Radosa MP, Runnebaum IB. Bilateral minimal tension sacrospinous fixation in pelvic organ prolapse: an observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;188:1–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Florian-Rodriguez ME, Hare A, Chin K, Phelan JN, Ripperda CM, Corton MM. Inferior gluteal and other nerves associated with sacrospinous ligament: a cadaver study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):646 e1–6.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Unger CA, Walters MD. Gluteal and posterior thigh pain in the postoperative period and the need for intervention after sacrospinous ligament colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(4):208–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Propst K, O’Sullivan DM, Steinberg AC. Randomized double-blind trial of short- versus long-acting analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(1):123–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Morgan DM, Larson K. Uterosacral and sacrospinous ligament suspension for restoration of apical vaginal support. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;53(1):72–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    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(4):365–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1023–34.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    •• Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, Norton P, Gantz M, Richter HE, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65. Provided long-term results on OPTIMAL trial demonstrating no difference in efficacy between USLS and SSLF. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Shull BL. Pelvic organ prolapse: anterior, superior, and posterior vaginal segment defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(1):6–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Serati M, Braga A, Bogani G, Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Sorice P, Ghezzi F, et al. Iliococcygeus fixation for the treatment of apical vaginal prolapse: efficacy and safety at 5 years of follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(7):1007–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Biler A, Ertas IE, Tosun G, Hortu I, Demir A, Taner CE, et al. Perioperative complications and short-term outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy, laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy, sacrospinous ligament fixation, and iliococcygeus fixation procedures. Turk J Med Sci. 2018;48(3):602–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Milani R, Cesana MC, Spelzini F, Sicuri M, Manodoro S, Fruscio R. Iliococcygeus fixation or abdominal sacral colpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(2):279–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Abraham N, Quirouet A, Goldman HB. Transabdominal sacrocolpopexy with autologous rectus fascia graft. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(8):1273–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Shippey S, Cundiff GW, Sanses T, Blomquist JL, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):557 e1–5.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mahendru R. Rectus fascia colpopexy for post-hysterectomy vault prolapse: a valid option. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2010;11(2):69–72.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Oliver JL, Chaudhry ZQ, Medendorp AR, Wood LN, Baxter ZC, Kim JH, et al. Complete excision of sacrocolpopexy mesh with autologous fascia sacrocolpopexy. Urology. 2017;106:65–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Scott VCS, Oliver JL, Raz S, Kim JH. Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with autologous fascia lata: technique and initial outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03884-2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Altman D, Anzen B, Brismar S, Lopez A, Zetterstrom J. Long-term outcome of abdominal sacrocolpopexy using xenograft compared with synthetic mesh. Urology. 2006;67(4):719–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hijazi S, Echtle D, Aboumarzouk OM, Heinrich E. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Pelvicol xenograft and concomitant Burch colposuspension. Int J Women's Health. 2017;9:625–30.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Tate SB, Blackwell L, Lorenz DJ, Steptoe MM, Culligan PJ. Randomized trial of fascia lata and polypropylene mesh for abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(2):137–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ridgeway BM. Does prolapse equal hysterectomy? The role of uterine conservation in women with uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(6):802–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Farthmann J, Watermann D, Erbes T, Roth K, Nanovska P, Gitsch G, et al. Functional outcome after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(3):573–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Romanzi LJ, Tyagi R. Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(5):625–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hefni MA, El-Toukhy TA. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127(2):257–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Carey MP, Slack MC. Transvaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vault and marked uterovaginal prolapse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;101(6):536–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Haj-Yahya R, Chill HH, Levin G, Reuveni-Salzman A, Shveiky D. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament hysteropexy vs total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for anterior and apical prolapse: surgical outcome and patient satisfaction. J Minim Invasive Gyne col. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.02.012.
  89. 89.
    •• Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, Kim-Fine S, Balk EM, Murphy M, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129–46 e2. Provided clinical practice guidelines for uterine-sparing pelvic organ prolapse repairs based on review of clinical trials performed. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Crisp CC, Book NM, Cunkelman JA, Tieu AL, Pauls RN, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons’ Fellows’ Pelvic Research N. Body image, regret, and satisfaction 24 weeks after colpocleisis: a multicenter study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(3):132–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Zebede S, Smith AL, Plowright LN, Hegde A, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Obliterative LeFort colpocleisis in a large group of elderly women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(2 Pt 1):279–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Mueller MG, Ellimootil C, Abernethy MG, Mueller ER, Hohmann S, Kenton K. Colpocleisis: a safe, minimally invasive option for pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(1):30–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Krissi H, Aviram A, Eitan R, From A, Wiznitzer A, Peled Y. Risk factors for recurrence after Le Fort colpocleisis for severe pelvic organ prolapse in elderly women. Int J Surg. 2015;20:75–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Madsen LD, Nussler E, Kesmodel US, Greisen S, Bek KM, Glavind-Kristensen M. Native-tissue repair of isolated primary rectocele compared with nonabsorbable mesh: patient-reported outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):49–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Mellgren A, Anzen B, Nilsson BY, Johansson C, Dolk A, Gillgren P, et al. Results of rectocele repair. A prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38(1):7–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Grimes CL, Tan-Kim J, Whitcomb EL, Lukacz ES, Menefee SA. Long-term outcomes after native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(5):597–604.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Schiavi MC, D’Oria O, Faiano P, Prata G, Di Pinto A, Sciuga V, et al. Vaginal native tissue repair for posterior compartment prolapse: long-term analysis of sexual function and quality of life in 151 patients. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(6):419–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Abramov Y, Gandhi S, Goldberg RP, Botros SM, Kwon C, Sand PK. Site-specific rectocele repair compared with standard posterior colporrhaphy. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(2):314–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD. Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1762–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Roman H, Michot F. Long-term outcomes of transanal rectocele repair. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(3):510–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen KM, Laitinen J, Oksala J, Heinonen PK. Transanal or vaginal approach to rectocele repair: a prospective, randomized pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47(10):1636–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Urology and Obstetrics & GynecologyNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations