International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 821–829 | Cite as

Patient-reported outcomes after sacrospinous fixation of vault prolapse with a suturing device: a retrospective national cohort study

  • Jennifer CampbellEmail author
  • Corinne Pedroletti
  • Linn Ekhed
  • Emil Nüssler
  • Annika Strandell
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Innovations in suturing devices have facilitated sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) for the correction of vaginal vault prolapse. It is uncertain if outcomes using suturing devices differ from those using a traditional suturing technique. We hypothesize that no difference exists in the efficacy and safety 1 year after SSF for vault prolapse performed with suturing devices or using a traditional technique. The objective was to compare SSF using a suturing device with traditional SSF for the treatment of vault prolapse, regarding symptoms of prolapse recurrence, patient satisfaction, incidence of re-operation, and complications 1 year postoperatively.


We carried out a retrospective cohort study using register-based national data from 2006 to 2013. The Swedish Quality Register of Gynecological Surgery includes assessments pre-operatively, at hospital admittance, surgery, discharge, and questionnaires at 8 weeks and 1 year after surgery.

Demographic variables and surgical methods were included in multivariate logistic regression analyses.


In the suturing device group (SDG, n = 353), 71.5% were asymptomatic of recurrence after 1 year compared with 78.7% in the traditional SSF group (TSG, n = 195); risk difference − 7.3% (95%CI −15.2%; 0.7%). Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for being asymptomatic 1 year postoperatively was 0.56 (95%CI 0.31; 1.02, p = 0.057). Patient satisfaction was similar in SDG and TSG (78.1% vs 78.4%). Reoperation occurred in 7.4% in the SDG compared with 3.6% in the TSG, risk difference 3.8% (95%CI 0.0%; 7.5%), aOR 3.55 (95%CI 1.10; 11.44, p = 0.03).


Patient satisfaction was similar 1 year after SSF, despite symptoms of recurrence being more likely and reoperation more common after using a suturing device compared with a traditional technique. The methods did not differ with regard to surgical complications.


Patient-reported outcome Sacrospinous ligament fixation Suturing device Vault prolapse 



We acknowledge Anders Pehrsson, from Statistiska Konsultgruppen, for help with statistical calculations, and Birgitta Renström, from the GynOp register, for help with extraction of data.


The study has received funds from Sweden’s Municipal and County Councils as part of their investment in research related to quality registers.

Compliance with ethical standards

Financial disclaimer/conflicts of interest


Details of ethics approval

Approval of the study was obtained from the local ethics committee of Gothenburg, 18 June 2014, Dnr 333–14.


  1. 1.
    Stjerndahl LH LM, Renström B. Årsredovisning avseende hysterektomi på beningn indikation år 2012. 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, Geiss I, Riss P. An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(3):299–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toozs-Hobson P, Boos K, Cardozo L. Management of vaginal vault prolapse. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105(1):13–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tegerstedt G, Miedel A, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M. A short-form questionnaire identified genital organ prolapse. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(1):41–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Maehle-Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M. Symptoms and pelvic support defects in specific compartments. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(4):851–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Janson PO. Gynekologi. 2 ed: Studentlitteratur AB; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    UR-ARG. Prolaps. Svensk Förening för Obstetrik och Gynekologi, 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Altman D FC, Zetterström J. Urogynekologi 2010.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown JS, Waetjen LE, Subak LL, Thom DH, Van den Eeden S, Vittinghoff E. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(4):712–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L. Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(1):108–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marcickiewicz J, Kjollesdal M, Engh ME, Eklind S, Axen C, Brannstrom M, et al. Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy and laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(6):733–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sederl J. Surgery in prolapse of a blind-end vagina. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1958;18(6):824–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davila GW, Ghoniem GM, Kapoor DS, Contreras-Ortiz O. Pelvic floor dysfunction management practice patterns: a survey of members of the International Urogynecological Association. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002;13(5):319–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16. Antal sakrospinosusfixationer i Sverige Umeå: Norrlands Universitetssjukhus; 2014 [Report]. Available from:
  17. 17.
    Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Alessandri F, Remorgida V, Venturini PL, Ferrero S. Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy using the Capio suture-capturing device versus traditional technique: feasibility and outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(2):267–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pollak J, Takacs P, Medina C. Complications of three sacrospinous ligament fixation techniques. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99(1):18–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1815–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Morlin B, Hammarstrom M. A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1593–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Culligan PJ, Murphy M, Blackwell L, Hammons G, Graham C, Heit MH. Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(6):1473–80. discussion 81–2.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tegerstedt G, Hammarstrom M. Operation for pelvic organ prolapse: a follow-up study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(8):758–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morgan DM, Rogers MA, Huebner M, Wei JT, Delancey JO. Heterogeneity in anatomic outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation for prolapse: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(6):1424–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    Sze EH, Karram MM. Transvaginal repair of vault prolapse: a review. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(3):466–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Women’s HealthSahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska AcademyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  5. 5.National Quality Register of Gynecological SurgeryUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations