Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 707–718 | Cite as

Where to for pelvic organ prolapse treatment after the FDA pronouncements?

A systematic review of the recent literature
  • J. M. van GeelenEmail author
  • P. L. Dwyer
Review Article

Abstract

Introduction

With the publication of the updated US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communication in 2011 on the use of transvaginal placement of mesh for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) it is appropriate to now review recent studies of good quality on POP to assess the safety and effectiveness of treatment options and determine their place in management.

Methods

A systematic search for studies on the conservative and surgical management of POP published in the English literature between January 2002 and October 2012 was performed. Studies included were review articles, randomized controlled trials, prospective and relevant retrospective studies as well as conference abstracts. Selected articles were appraised by the authors regarding clinical relevance.

Results

Prospective comparative studies show that vaginal pessaries constitute an effective and safe treatment for POP and should be offered as first treatment of choice in women with symptomatic POP. However, a pessary will have to be used for the patient’s lifetime. Abdominal sacral colpopexy is effective in treating apical prolapse with an acceptable benefit-risk ratio. This procedure should be balanced against the low but non-negligible risk of serious complications. The results of native tissue vaginal POP repair are better than previously thought with high patient satisfaction and acceptable reoperation rates. The insertion of mesh at the time of anterior vaginal wall repair reduces the awareness of prolapse as well as the risk of recurrent anterior prolapse. There is no difference in anatomic and subjective outcome when native tissue vaginal repairs are compared with multicompartment vaginal mesh. Mesh exposure is still a significant problem requiring surgical excision in approximately ≥10 % of cases. The ideal mesh has not yet been found necessitating more basic research into mesh properties and host response. Several studies indicate that greater surgical experience is correlated with fewer mesh complications. In women with uterovaginal prolapse uterine preservation is a feasible option which women should be offered. Randomized studies with long-term follow-up are advisable to establish the place of uterine preservation in POP surgery.

Conclusion

Over the last decade treatment of POP has been dominated by the use of mesh. Conservative treatment is the first option in women with POP. Surgical repair with or without mesh generally results in good short-term objective and functional outcomes. However, basic research into mesh properties with host response and comparative studies with long-term follow-up are urgently needed.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) Conservative management of POP POP repair Vaginal surgery Transvaginal mesh Uterine preservation 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Committee on Gynecologic Practice (2011) Committee opinion no. 513: vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 118:1459–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA Safety Communication: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertandNotices/umc262435.htm
  3. 3.
    Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hagen S, Stark D (2011) Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD003882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kapoor DS, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Oliver R (2009) Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1157–1161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lamers BHC, Broekman BMW, Milani AL (2011) Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and health-related quality of life: a review. Int Urogynecol J 22:637–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ramsay S, Tu L (2012) Pessary use as a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 7Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lone F, Thakar R, Sultan AH, (2012) A one year prospective comparison of vaginal pessaries and surgery in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse using the validated ICIQ-VS questionnaire. IUGA 37th Annual Meeting. Abstract 77Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeLancey JO (1994) The anatomy of the pelvic floor. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 6:313–316Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brubaker L, ICI Committee 15 et al (2009) Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI) 4:1273–1320Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, Zyczynski H et al (2004) Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol 104:805–823PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jia X, Glazener C, Mowattt G, Jenkinson D, Fraser C, Bain C, Burr J (2010) Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21:1413–1431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR (2010) Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG 117:62–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ (2004) Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:20–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rondini C, Braun HF, Alvarez J et al (2011) Prospective randomized study comparing high uterosacral vault suspension vs. abdominal sacral colpopexy for the correction of apical defects and vaginal vault prolapse. 36th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 88Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pakbaz M, Mogren I, Löfgren M (2009) Outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse: a population-based, retrospective, cross-sectional study of patient perceptions of results including sexual activity, urinary symptoms, and provided care. BMC Womens Health 9:9. Available via http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/9/9/prepub PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jha S, Moran P (2011) The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on. Int Urogynecol J 22:517–528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vanspauwen R, Seman E, Dwyer P (2010) Survey of current management of prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 50:262–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wu MP, Long CY, Huang KU et al (2012) Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study. Int Urogynecol J 23:865–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Detollenaere RJ, Den Boon J, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME, van Eijndhoven HW (2012) Trends in surgical management of uterovaginal prolapse and uterine descent in the Netherlands. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 157Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation of surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1261–1267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salvatore S, Athanasiou S, Digesu GA, Soligo M, Sotiropoulou M, Serati M, Antsaklis A, Milani R (2009) Identification of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence. Neurourol Urodyn 28:301–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abdel-Fattah M, Familusi A, Fielding S, Ford J, Bhattacharya S (2011) Primary and repeat surgical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in parous women in the UK: a register linkage study. BMJ Open 1:e000206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dällenbach P, Jungo Nancoz CJ, Eperon I, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M (2012) Incidence and risk factors for reoperation of surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23:35–41Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, Geiss I, Riss P (2010) An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21:299–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fatton B, Amblard J, Debodinance P, Cosson M, Jacquetin B (2007) Transvaginal repair of genital prolapse: preliminary results of a new tension-free vaginal mesh (Prolift technique)—a case series multicentric study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:743–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jacquetin B, Fatton B, Rosenthal C, Clavé H, Debodinance P, Hinoul P et al (2010) Total transvaginal mesh (TVM) technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a 3 year prospective follow-up study. Int Urogynecol J 21(12):1455–1462PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller D, Lucente V, Babin E, Beach P, Jones P, Robinson D (2011) Prospective clinical assessment of the transvaginal mesh technique for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse—5-year results. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17:139–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Milani AL, Hinoul P, Gauld J et al (2012) Medium term clinical outcomes following trocar guided mesh repair of vaginal prolapse using partially absorbable mesh. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 81Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stanford EJ, Moore RD, Roovers JP et al (2012) A prospective multi-center clinical trial evaluating Elevate Anterior and Apical in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: two year follow-up. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstracts 42, 83Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stanford EJ, Cassidenti A, Moen MD (2012) Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Int Urogynecol J 23:19–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schmid C, Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener C (2012) Cochrane review; surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 6Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Achtari C, Hiscock R, O’Reilly BA, Schierlitz L, Dwyer PL (2005) Risk factors for mesh erosion after transvaginal surgery using polypropylene (Atrium) or composite polypropylene/polyglactin 910 (Vypro II) mesh. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:389–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Hendriks JC, Kluivers KB, Milani AL (2011) Risk factors for exposure, pain, and dyspareunia after tension-free vaginal mesh procedure. Obstet Gynecol 118:629–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maher CF, Feiner B, DeCuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke PV (2011) Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 204:360–367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Withagen MI, Vierhout ME, Mannaerts GH, van der Weiden RM, Kluivers KB, Milani AL (2012) Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with bone anchor fixation versus total vaginal mesh for vault prolapse: comparison of cohorts. Thesis, K.U. Nijmegen, pp 105–119Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Withagen M, Milani AL, den Boom J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME (2011) Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 117:242–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Withagen MI, Milani AL, de Leeuw JW, Vierhout ME (2012) Development of de novo prolapse in untreated vaginal compartments after prolapse repair with and without mesh: a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 119:354–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Diwan A, Rardin CR, Kohli N (2004) Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:286–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dietz V, Schraffordt Koops SE, van der Vaart CH (2009) Vaginal surgery for uterine descent; which options do we have? A review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:349–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baessler K, Hewson AD, Tunn R, Schuessler B, Maher CF (2005) Severe mesh complications following intravaginal slingplasty. Obstet Gynecol 106:713–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MIJ, Vierhout ME (2009) The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1313–1319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thompson JD, Rock JA (1992) Te Linde’s operative gynecology, 7th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 842–846Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thys SD, Coolen AL, Martens IR, Oosterbaan HP, Roovers JP, Mol BW, Bongers MY (2011) A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent. Int Urogynecol J 22:1171–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Richardson DA, Scotti RJ, Ostergard DR (1989) Surgical management of uterine prolapse in young women. J Reprod Med 34:388–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack CJ, Murray CJ, Milligan M, Schluter P (2001) Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:381–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hefni M, El-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E (2003) Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:645–650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    van Brummen HJ, van de Pol G, Aalders CIM, Heintz APM, van der Vaart CH (2003) Sacrospinous hysteropexy as primary surgical treatment for a descensus uteri: effects on urinary symptoms. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14:350–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Schraffordt Koops S (2010) One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J 21:209–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Feiner B, Gietelink L, Maher C (2010) Anterior vaginal mesh sacrospinous hysteropexy and posterior fascial plication for anterior compartment dominated uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 21:203–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Romanzi LJ, Tyagi R (2012) Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ? Int Urogynecol J 23:625–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sederl J (1959) Zur Operation des Prolapses der blind endigenden Scheiden. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 18:824–828Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Richter K (1967) Die operative Behandlung des prolabierten Scheidengrundes nach Uterusextirpation. Beitrag zur Vaginaefixatio Sacrotuberalis nach Amreich. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 27:941–954PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sze EH, Karram MM (1997) Transvaginal repair of vault prolapse: a review. Obstet Gynecol 89:466–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Beer M, Kuhn A (2005) Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 119:144–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Morgan DM, Rogers MA, Huebner M, Wei JT, Delancey JO (2007) Heterogeneity in anatomic outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation for prolapse: a systemic review. Obstet Gynecol 109:1424–1433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cvach K, Dwyer P (2012) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: abdominal and vaginal approaches. World J Urol 30:471–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Holley RL, Varner RE, Gleason BP, Apffel LA, Scott S (1995) Recurrent pelvic support defects after sacrospinous ligament fixation for vaginal vault prolapse. J Am Coll Surg 180:444–448PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sze EH, Meranus J, Kohli N, Miklos JR, Karram M (2001) Vaginal configuration on MRI after abdominal sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:375–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lo TS, Ashok K (2011) Combined anterior trans-obturator mesh and sacrospinous ligament fixation in women with severe prolapse—a case series of 30 months follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 22:299–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Petros PE (2001) Vault prolapse II: restoration of dynamic vaginal supports by infracoccygeal sacropexy, an axial day-case vaginal procedure. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:296–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nichols DH (1992) Enterocele and massive eversion of the vagina, Chap. 32. In Te Linde’s operative gynecologyGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Miller NF (1927) A new method of correcting complete eversion of the vagina with and without complete prolapse; report of 2 cases. Surg Gynecol Obstet 44:550–555Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, Kuehl TJ (2000) A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:1365–1373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM (2010) Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202:124–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dwyer PL, Fatton B (2008) Bilateral extraperitoneal uterosacral suspension: a new approach to correct posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:283–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lim YN, Rosamilia A, Dwyer PL et al (2012) Randomised controlled trial of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse treatment with extraperitoneal vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension with anterior mesh reinforcement vs. sacrocolpopexy. 37th IUGA Annual Meeting. Abstract 5Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE (2009) Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 113:367–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Maher CF, Baessler K (2006) Surgical management of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: an evidence based literature review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 115:1350–1361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nguyen J, Burchette R (2008) Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 111:891–898PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I (2008) A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:467–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, Lim J, Leong A, Krause H, Cornish A (2009) Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 116:1380–1386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Nieminen K, Hiltunen R, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, Heinonen PK (2010) Outcomes after anterior vaginal wall repair with mesh: a randomized, controlled trial with a 3 year follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:235.e1–235.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH (2011) Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomised trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG 118:1518–1527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Altman D, Väyrinen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C et al (2011) Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. N Engl J Med 364:1826–1836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Menefee SA, Dyer KY, Lukacz ES, Simsiman AJ, Luber KM, Nguyen JN (2011) Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft-reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1337–1344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Sokol AI, Iglesia CB, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Shveiky D, Bercik R, Sokol ER (2012) One-year objective and functional outcomes of a randomized clinical trial of vaginal mesh for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206(1):86.e1–86.e9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    DeLancey JOL (2012) Surgery for cystocele III: do all cystoceles involve apical descent? Observations on cause and effect. Int Urogynecol J 23:665–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Dietz HP, Franco AV, Shek KL, Kirby A (2012) Avulsion injury and levator hiatal ballooning: two independent risk factors for prolapse? An observational study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 91:211–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lee U, Wolff EM, Kobashi KC (2012) Native tissue repairs in anterior vaginal prolapse surgery: examining definitions of surgical success in the mesh era. Curr Opin Urol 22:265–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH (2012) Effects of vaginal prolapse surgery on sexuality in women and men; results from a RCT on repair with and without mesh. J Sex Med 9:1200–1211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Greisen S, Glavind-Kristensen M, Bek KM et al (2012) Subjective and objective results of anterior vaginal wall repair in an outpatient clinic: a 5-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 23:883–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kapoor DS, Nemcova M, Pantazis K, Brockman P, Bombieri L, Freeman RM (2010) Reoperation rate for traditional anterior vaginal wall repair: analysis of 207 cases with a median 4-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J 21:27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Moore RD, Mitchell GK, Miklos JR (2012) Single-incision vaginal approach to treat cystocele and vault prolapse with an anterior wall mesh anchored apically to the sacrospinous ligaments. Int Urogynecol J 23:85–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Mourtialon P, Letouzey V, Eglin G, de Tayrac R et al (2012) Cystocele repair by vaginal route: comparison of three different surgical techniques of mesh placement. Int Urogynecol J 23:699–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW, Walters MD (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1762–1771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Grimes CL, Tan-Kim J, Whitcomb EL, Lukacz ES, Menefee SA (2012) Long-term outcomes after native tissue vs. biological graft augmented repair in the posterior compartment. Int Urogynecol J 23:597–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Kudish BI, Iglesia CB (2010) Posterior wall prolapse and repair. Clin Obstet Gynecol 53:59–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM et al (2011) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. In: The Cochrane Library, issue 2, WileyGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Lukban JC, Roovers JP, VanDrie DM, Erickson T, Zylstra S, Patel MP, Moore RD (2012) Single-incision apical and posterior mesh repair: 1-year prospective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 23:1413–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Slieker-ten Hove MC, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJ, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Burger CW, Vierhout ME (2009) Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and possible risk factors in a general population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:184.e1–184.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Foundation of pelvic floor patients (SBP), The NetherlandsOssThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department Urogynecology, Mercy Hospital for WomenUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations