Advertisement
JOGC

Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

Published:February 03, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2021.02.001

      Abstract

      Objective

      To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

      Target population

      Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction.

      Options

      Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options.

      Outcomes

      The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire).

      Benefits, harms, and costs

      This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.

      Evidence

      We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.

      Validation methods

      The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).

      Intended users

      Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP.

      SUMMARY STATEMENTS

      All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.
      • 1
        Vaginal suture suspension to various pelvic ligaments was inferior to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (any route) with synthetic mesh for the outcomes of
        • overall objective failure (moderate)
        • objective apical failure (moderate)
      • 2
        Vaginal suture suspension to various pelvic ligaments was similar to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (any route) with synthetic mesh for the outcomes of
        • objective anterior failure (moderate)
        • objective posterior failure (moderate)
        • subjective awareness of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (moderate)
        • reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (moderate)
        • intraoperative bladder and ureteric injuries (low)
        • postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (low)
      • 3
        Vaginal suture suspension to various pelvic ligaments was not associated with a risk of mesh exposure compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy (any route) with synthetic mesh, which is associated with a 2.7% to 3.4% risk of mesh exposure (moderate).
      • 4
        Open abdominal sacrocolpopexy was inferior to minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) sacrocolpopexy for the outcomes of
        • overall objective failure (low)
        • objective posterior failure (low)
      • 5
        Open abdominal sacrocolpopexy was similar to minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) sacrocolpopexy for the outcomes of
        • objective anterior failure (low)
        • subjective awareness of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (moderate)
        • reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (moderate)
        • intraoperative bladder injuries (moderate)
        • reoperation for stress urinary incontinence (low)
        • mesh exposure (moderate)
      • 6
        Various minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy approaches (laparoscopic or robotic) showed similar risk of
        • subjective awareness of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (very low)
        • intraoperative bladder injury (moderate)
        • postoperative stress urinary incontinence (very low)
        • mesh exposure (moderate)
      • 7
        There are insufficient data comparing urge urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction risk after open abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy and among various approaches to minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (very low).
      • 8
        Uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous fixation showed similar risk of
        • objective failure rates (overall and by compartment) (moderate)
        • subjective awareness of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (moderate)
        • reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (moderate)
        • intraoperative bladder injury (moderate)
        • reoperation for stress urinary incontinence (moderate)
      • 9
        Uterosacral ligament suspension compared with sacrospinous fixation showed a higher risk of
        • intraoperative ureteric injury (moderate)
      • 10
        Hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy (by any route) were similar for the outcomes of
        • overall objective failure (low)
        • objective anterior failure (low)
        • objective apical failure (low)
        • subjective awareness of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (low)
        • reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (low)
        • lower urinary tract symptoms (low)
        • intraoperative bladder or ureteric injury (low)
      • 11
        Hysterectomy and suspension compared with hysteropexy (by any route) were inferior for the outcome of
        • objective posterior failure (low)
      • 12
        Hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy compared with sacrohysteropexy (abdominal, laparoscopic, or robotic) showed a higher risk of
        • mesh exposure (low)
      • 13
        Vaginal hysterectomy with suspension and vaginal hysteropexy showed similar risk of
        • objective failure (overall and by compartment) (low)
        • risk of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence (very low)
        • intraoperative ureteric injury (very low)
      • 14
        In the short-term (1-year) correction of advanced apical vaginal prolapse (stage 3 or 4), vaginal suture suspension to various pelvic ligaments is similar to colpocleisis for the outcomes of overall objective failure, intraoperative urinary tract injury, and condition-specific improvement in quality of life (very low).
      • 15
        Uterosacral ligament suspension compared with sacrospinous fixation showed a lower risk of
        • short-term/transient buttock pain (low)
      • 16
        Current data are inconclusive for the outcomes of persistent pelvic pain or postoperative sexual function, including de novo dyspareunia, when comparing vaginal with abdominal apical suspensions, open with minimally invasive apical suspensions, various vaginal apical suspensions, and hysterectomy and suspension with hysteropexy (very low).

      RECOMMENDATIONS

      • 1
        Women seeking surgical correction of apical pelvic organ prolapse should be counselled about the higher risk of objective failure but similar rate of (1) subjective failure, (2) reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence, and (3) complications after vaginal suture suspensions compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy (any approach). This is balanced against the ongoing risk of mesh exposure after sacrocolpopexy, possibly requiring reintervention (conditional, moderate).
      • 2
        Appropriately trained surgeons should favour minimally invasive laparoscopic or robotic approaches to sacrocolpopexy (if surgical equipment is available) over open sacrocolpopexy, considering the improved overall objective outcomes and similar subjective outcomes in the short and medium term (conditional, low).
      • 3
        Both vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous fixation can be offered to women with apical pelvic organ prolapse, based on surgeon and patient preference; they appear to have similar objective and subjective outcomes at up to 5 years, apart from an increased risk of intraoperative ureteric injury with uterosacral ligament suspension and a higher risk of short-term/transient buttock pain after sacrospinous fixation (strong, moderate).
      • 4
        Various hysteropexy routes and techniques can be offered as an alternative to hysterectomy and suspension for women with apical pelvic organ prolapse who wish to conserve their uterus; they are associated with similar objective and subjective outcomes in the first 5 years (conditional, low).
      • 5
        Colpocleisis should be discussed as a treatment option for women who do not wish to be sexually active in the future, despite the paucity of comparative evidence; it appears to be a successful procedure with few reported complications (strong, low).
      • 6
        Women undergoing surgery for symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse should receive counselling about the lack of comparative data on postoperative pelvic pain and sexual function for various procedures. Overall, the risk of postoperative pelvic pain appears to be low, and sexual function seems to improve among sexually active women with pelvic organ prolapse who undergo reconstructive surgery (conditional, very low).

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Barber MD
        • Maher C
        Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24 (Available from:): 1783-1790
        • Barber MD
        Pelvic organ prolapse.
        BMJ. 2016; 354 (Available from:): i3853
        • Wu JM
        • Matthews CA
        • Conover MM
        • Pate V
        • Jonsson Funk M
        Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123 (Available from:): 1201-1206
        • Smith FJ
        • Holman CD
        • Moorin RE
        • Tsokos N
        Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116 (Available from:): 1096-1100
        • Olsen AL
        • Smith VJ
        • Bergstrom JO
        • Colling JC
        • Clark AL
        Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89 (Available from:): 501-506
        • Clark AL
        • Gregory T
        • Smith VJ
        • Edwards R
        Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189 (Available from:): 1261-1267
        • American Urogynecologic Society
        Practice Bulletin No. 185: Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 130 (Available from:): e234-ee50
        • Ağaçayak E
        • Yaman Tunç S
        • İçen MS
        • Başaranoğlu S
        • Fındık FM
        • Sak S
        • et al.
        Should we add unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation to vaginal hysterectomy in management of stage 3 and stage 4 pelvic organ prolapse?.
        Turk J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 12 (Available from:): 144-150
        • Ross WT
        • Meister MR
        • Shepherd JP
        • Olsen MA
        • Lowder JL
        Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217 (436 e1- e8Available from:)
        • Anand M
        • Weaver AL
        • Fruth KM
        • Trabuco EC
        • Gebhart JB
        Symptom Relief and Retreatment After Vaginal, Open, or Robotic Surgery for Apical Vaginal Prolapse.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017; 23 (Available from:): 297-309
        • Chen Y
        • Hua K
        Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017; 137 (Available from:): 164-169
        • 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 (116 e1- e5Available from:)
        • Maher CF
        • Qatawneh AM
        • Dwyer PL
        • Carey MP
        • Cornish A
        • Schluter PJ
        Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190 (Available from:): 20-26
        • Marcickiewicz J
        • Kjöllesdal M
        • Engh ME
        • Eklind S
        • Axén C
        • Brännström M
        • et al.
        Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007; 86 (Available from:): 733-738
        • 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 (Available from:): 279-284
        • Ng CC
        • Han WH
        Comparison of effectiveness of vaginal and abdominal routes in treating severe uterovaginal or vault prolapse.
        Singapore Med J. 2004; 45 (Available from:): 475-481
        • Park YH
        • Yang SC
        • Park ST
        • Park SH
        • Kim HB
        Laparoscopic reconstructive surgery is superior to vaginal reconstruction in the pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int J Med Sci. 2014; 11 (Available from:): 1082-1088
        • Rondini C
        • Braun H
        • Alvarez J
        • Urzúa MJ
        • Villegas R
        • Wenzel C
        • et al.
        High uterosacral vault suspension vs Sacrocolpopexy for treating apical defects: a randomized controlled trial with twelve months follow-up.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26 (Available from:): 1131-1138
        • Roovers JP
        • van der Vaart CH
        • van der Bom JG
        • van Leeuwen JH
        • Scholten PC
        • Heintz AP
        A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function.
        BJOG. 2004; 111 (Available from:): 50-56
        • Sanses TV
        • Hanley JM
        • Zhang P
        • Richter HE
        • Gambert SR
        • Saigal CS
        Readmission and Prolapse Recurrence After Abdominal and Vaginal Apical Suspensions in Older Women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128 (Available from:): 1369-1377
        • 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 (Available from:): 93-98
        • Thompson PK
        • McCrery RJ
        • Lotze EC
        • Sangi-Haghpeykar HJFPM
        • Surgery R
        Vaginal prolapse surgery: comparing abdominal sacral colpopexy to uterosacral suspension.
        J Pelvic Med Surg. 2008; 14: 15-22
        • Anand M
        • Weaver AL
        • Fruth KM
        • Borah BJ
        • Klingele CJ
        • Gebhart JB
        Perioperative Complications and Cost of Vaginal, Open Abdominal, and Robotic Surgery for Apical Vaginal Vault Prolapse.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017; 23 (Available from:): 27-35
        • Eftekhar T
        • Forooghifar T
        • Alizadeh S
        • Shabihkhani S
        • Forooghifar T
        • MJJoGS Hajhashemy
        Apical Prolapse Surgical Treatment Outcomes: Transabdominal Versus Transvaginal Approach.
        J Gynecol Surg. 2018; 34: 68-73
        • Higgins JP
        • Thompson SG
        • Deeks JJ
        • Altman DG
        Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
        BMJ. 2003; 327 (Available from:): 557-560
        • Lone F
        • Curnow T
        • Thomas SA
        Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse using validated questionnaires: 2-year prospective study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 29 (Available from:): 71-79
        • Rahmanou P
        • Price N
        • Jackson SR
        Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26 (Available from:): 1687-1694
        • Abed H
        • Rahn DD
        • Lowenstein L
        • Balk EM
        • Clemons JL
        • Rogers RG
        Incidence and management of graft erosion, wound granulation, and dyspareunia following vaginal prolapse repair with graft materials: a systematic review.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22: 789-798
        • Larouche M
        • Geoffrion R
        • Walter JE
        No. 351-Transvaginal Mesh Procedures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017; 39 (Available from:): 1085-1097
        • 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 (Available from:): 2016-2024
        • Anger JT
        • Mueller ER
        • Tarnay C
        • Smith B
        • Stroupe K
        • Rosenman A
        • et al.
        Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123 (Available from:): 5-12
        • Coolen AWM
        • 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; 28 (Available from:): 1469-1479
        • Costantini E
        • Mearini L
        • Lazzeri M
        • Bini V
        • Nunzi E
        • di Biase M
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic Versus Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.
        J Urol. 2016; 196 (Available from:): 159-165
        • Freeman RM
        • Pantazis K
        • Thomson A
        • Frappell J
        • Bombieri L
        • Moran P
        • et al.
        A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24 (Available from:): 377-384
        • Geller EJ
        • Parnell BA
        • Dunivan GC
        Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes.
        Urology. 2012; 79 (Available from:): 532-536
        • Illiano E
        • Ditonno P
        • Giannitsas K
        • De Rienzo G
        • Bini V
        • Costantini E
        Robot-assisted Vs Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for High-stage Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-center Study.
        Urology. 2019; 134 (Available from:): 116-123
        • Kenton K
        • Mueller ER
        • Tarney C
        • Bresee C
        • Anger JT
        One-Year Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016; 22 (Available from:): 382-384
        • Klauschie JL
        • Suozzi BA
        • O'Brien MM
        • McBride AW
        A comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal sacral colpopexy: objective outcome and perioperative differences.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009; 20 (Available from:): 273-279
        • Nosti PA
        • Umoh Andy U
        • Kane S
        • White DE
        • Harvie HS
        • Lowenstein L
        • et al.
        Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014; 20 (Available from:): 33-37
        • Paek J
        • Lee M
        • Kim BW
        • Kwon Y
        Robotic or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus open sacrohysteropexy for uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27 (Available from:): 593-599
        • Paraiso MF
        • Jelovsek JE
        • Frick A
        • Chen CC
        • Barber MD
        Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118 (Available from:): 1005-1013
        • Seror J
        • Yates DR
        • Seringe E
        • Vaessen C
        • Bitker MO
        • Chartier-Kastler E
        • et al.
        Prospective comparison of short-term functional outcomes obtained after pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
        World J Urol. 2012; 30 (Available from:): 393-398
        • Siddiqui NY
        • Geller EJ
        • Visco AG
        Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206 (Available from:): 435 e1-5
        • Tan-Kim J
        • Menefee SA
        • Luber KM
        • Nager CW
        • Lukacz ES
        Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: comparing operative times, costs and outcomes.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011; 17 (Available from:): 44-49
        • Dietz V
        • van der Vaart CH
        • van der Graaf Y
        • Heintz P
        • Schraffordt Koops SE
        One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21 (Available from:): 209-216
        • 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 (Available from:): 1023-1034
        • Barber MD
        • Brubaker L
        • Nygaard I
        • Wai CY
        • Dyer KY
        • Ellington D
        • et al.
        Pain and activity after vaginal reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 221 (Available from:) (233 e1- e16)
        • Detollenaere RJ
        • den Boon J
        • Stekelenburg J
        • IntHout J
        • Vierhout ME
        • Kluivers KB
        • et al.
        Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.
        BMJ. 2015; 351: h3717
        • Husby KR
        • Larsen MD
        • Lose G
        • Klarskov N
        Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30 (Available from:): 1887-1893
        • 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 (Available from:): 1554-1565
        • Schulten SFM
        • Detollenaere RJ
        • Stekelenburg J
        • IntHout J
        • Kluivers KB
        • van Eijndhoven HWF
        Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
        BMJ. 2019; 366 (Available from:): l5149
        • Costantini E
        • Mearini L
        • Bini V
        • Zucchi A
        • Mearini E
        • Porena M
        Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse.
        Eur Urol. 2005; 48 (Available from:): 642-649
        • Cvach K
        • Geoffrion R
        • Cundiff GW
        Abdominal sacral hysteropexy: a pilot study comparing sacral hysteropexy to sacral colpopexy with hysterectomy.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18 (Available from:): 286-290
        • 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 Gynecol. 2020; 27 (Available from:): 88-93
        • Hefni M
        • El-Toukhy T
        • Bhaumik J
        • Katsimanis E
        Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188 (Available from:): 645-650
        • Ng SC
        • Tsui KP
        • Huang L
        • Chen GD
        Effects of uterine preservation on long-term subjective outcomes of sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019; 240 (Available from:): 167-171
        • Pan K
        • Cao L
        • Ryan NA
        • Wang Y
        • Xu H
        Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27 (Available from:): 93-101
        • Romanzi LJ
        • Tyagi R
        Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23 (Available from:): 625-631
        • Barber MD
        • Amundsen CL
        • Paraiso MF
        • Weidner AC
        • Romero A
        • Walters MD
        Quality of life after surgery for genital prolapse in elderly women: obliterative and reconstructive surgery.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007; 18 (Available from:): 799-806
        • Rardin CR
        • Erekson EA
        • Sung VW
        • Ward RM
        • Myers DL
        Uterosacral colpopexy at the time of vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of laparoscopic and vaginal approaches.
        J Reprod Med. 2009; 54 (Available from:): 273-280
        • Vallabh-Patel V
        • Saiz C
        • Salamon C
        Subjective and Objective Outcomes of Robotic and Vaginal High Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016; 22 (Available from:): 420-424
        • Ko YC
        • Yoo EH
        • Han GH
        • Kim YM
        Comparison of sexual function between sacrocolpopexy and sacrocervicopexy.
        Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017; 60 (Available from:): 207-212
        • Kokanalı MK
        • Cavkaytar S
        • Aksakal O
        • Doğanay M
        McCall Culdoplasty vs. Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation after vaginal hysterectomy: comparison of postoperative vaginal length and sexual function in postmenopausal women.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 194 (Available from:): 218-222
        • Costantini E
        • Porena M
        • Lazzeri M
        • Mearini L
        • Bini V
        • Zucchi A
        Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair: role of hysterectomy.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24 (Available from:): 1481-1487
      1. Larouche M, Belzile E, Geoffrion R. Surgical Management of Symptomatic Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2021;137(6). In press.

        • 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 (Available from:): 44-55