International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 781–788 | Cite as

Anterior colporrhaphy: a standard operation? Systematic review of the technical aspects of a common procedure in randomized controlled trials

  • Ksenia Halpern-ElenskaiaEmail author
  • Wolfgang Umek
  • Barbara Bodner-Adler
  • Engelbert Hanzal
Open Access
Review Article



Anterior colporrhaphy (AC) is considered a standard procedure and is performed all over the world. However, not a single step of the procedure has ever been truly standardized and the rates of failure show a wide range in the literature from 0% up to 92%. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the differences in technique and procedure worldwide.


We performed a systematic literature search up to March 2016 using the MeSH terms “(anterior AND (colporrhaph* or colporhaph* or repair* or cystocel*)” using Preferred Reporting Items for Sytematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included in the systematic review. A 14-point checklist was used to assess the quality of surgery undertaken in each RCT.


Forty RCTs from all over the world were included in the review. The indication for AC was urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse. A detailed description of colporrhaphy was not provided even in the well-conducted RCTs. The review showed differences in each step of the procedure, in perioperative care, in anesthesia and in surgeon’ experience.


Our results highlight the problems concerning AC with the great range in postoperative outcomes. There is diversity in the anatomical structures used in the repair, in perioperative care and in the procedure itself.


Colporrhaphy Cystocele Prolapse Surgery Outcome 


Anterior colporrhaphy (AC) is considered a standard procedure just as are appendectomy and tonsillectomy, and is performed all over the world. In the USA, more than 200,000 operations are done annually for pelvic organ prolapse [1] and 81% of them include AC [2]. The principle of colporrhaphy is based on the plication of the vesicovaginal fascia in the midline to reinforce the natural wall between the vagina and bladder. But is there really “a standard” and do we really speak of the same procedure when we discuss this often-performed operation in prolapse surgery? For a long time AC has remained a quasistandard, although to our knowledge not a single step of the procedure has ever been truly standardized. Even in most surgical textbooks a detailed description is not given and no clear internationally relevant guidelines exist; for example, Billingham et al. point out that “Aggressiveness of the plication and the longevity of the plication are dependent on the surgeon’s preference “ [3].

In a recent comprehensive historical review, Lensen et al. [4] found that AC has been around for approximately 150 years and the recurrence rates today appear to be similar to those a century ago [4, 5]. Estimates of rates of failure show a wide range in the literature, from an unbelievable 0% up to a devastating 92% [6, 7]. This rather disappointing scatter of results for this time-honored operation considered as a “standard” has not gone unnoticed in medical research. Lensen et al. evaluated the variation in the technique of AC among members of the Dutch Urogynecologic Society [7]. Their findings demonstrated that even within a specialized small group of urogynecologists in one country, the technique of cystocele repair shows great variety. There were variations in preoperative evaluation, variations in the intraoperative steps, and divergence in postoperative follow-up programs. These findings raise the question about worldwide differences in technique and procedure in a populations of surgeons of varied clinical backgrounds.

Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to estimate worldwide variations in the technique of AC. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review investigating this topic.

Materials and methods

We performed a systematic literature search using the MeSH terms “(anterior AND (colporrhaph* or colporhaph* or repair* or cystocel*)”. We searched the following databases up to the April 2017: Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase (from 1974). Only randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included in the systematic review, presenting level I scientific evidence with a detailed description of the intervention [8]. Two authors (E.H., K.H.-E.) independently assessed each individual study and the steps of the procedure using Preferred Reporting Items for Sytematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [9]. The protocol of this review was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42017065995). The following 14-point checklist was used to assess the quality of surgery in each RCT:
  1. 1.


  2. 2.

    Preoperative antibiotics (use, technique, duration)

  3. 3.

    Catheterization (use, technique, time of insertion, duration) and management of urine residual.

  4. 4.

    Infiltration (use, technique)

  5. 5.

    Incision (method, anatomical position, length)

  6. 6.

    Preparation of the vesicovaginal fascia (method, landmark)

  7. 7.

    Anatomical definition of the plicated structure

  8. 8.

    The plication of fascia (suture technique, suture material, description of suture length/number of sutures/distance between sutures)

  9. 9.

    Vaginal trimming

  10. 10.

    Vaginal closure (suture technique, suture material)

  11. 11.

    Intraoperative cystoscopy

  12. 12.

    Perioperative estrogen

  13. 13.


  14. 14.

    Surgeons (number, expertise)

We recorded whether steps of the procedure were standardized and which of the steps were described in detail. We also analyzed data concerning the surgeons’ qualifications, perioperative care and each step of the procedure.


The results of the search are presented as a PRISMA flow chart (Fig. 1). Forty RCTs remained after removal of duplicates and studies not matching the eligibility criteria (Table 1). The indications for AC were urinary incontinence [10, 11, 12], pelvic organ prolapse [13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49] or both [14, 17, 18, 24, 28, 39, 42].
Fig. 1

PRISMA flow chart of the study selection process

Table 1

Studies included for review



Number of patients


























The Netherlands
















































The Netherlands









The Netherlands







































In nine studies (22.5%) a standardized procedure was used [10, 25, 26, 33, 35, 43, 44, 47, 48], In one study a “similar preset” [21] as defined by the authors was mentioned, but in other studies the procedure was either not standardized or was not mentioned. In none of the studies was a complete list of steps of a standardized procedure presented.

Preoperative antibiotics

In 23 studies (57.5%) preoperative/perioperative antibiotics were administered. Data concerning antibiotic administration was not provided in the remaining studies. The duration of antibiotic therapy was provided in 17 of the 23 studies: single shot antibiotics were administered in 14 studies, with a 2-day or 3-day regimen in each [25, 45]. Information concerning the type of antibiotic was given in 11 studies (27.5%). Cephalosporins were used in four studies: first-generation (cefazolin) in two [41, 43), second-generation (cefuroxime) in one [30], and third-generation (ceftriaxone) in one [42]. Ampicillin plus clavulanic acid was used in two studies [18, 37. Combinations of two antibiotics (cephalosporin + clindamycin or metronidazole) were given in six studies: cefuroxime + clindamycin in one [33], cefuroxime + metronidazole in one [21], cefotaxime + metronidazole in one [45], cephalosporin + metronidazole in one [46], and cefazolin + metronidazole in two [37, 40].

Catheterization and management of residual urine

In 22 studies (55.0%) no comment was provided on preoperative/postoperative catheter use. In one study catheterization was performed according to the surgeon’s preference [33]. Insertion was performed preoperatively in one study [43], postoperatively in six studies [15, 18, 19, 24, 37, 48] and intraoperatively in four studies [26, 31, 44, 45]; postoperative catheterization was not mentioned. In other studies, the time of insertion was not clear or was according to the surgeon’s preference [33]. The type of catheter used was mentioned in seven studies: in two studies a transurethral Foley catheter was used [39, 41, 44], in two a suprapubic catheter [12, 14], in one a transurethral Foley catheter placed preoperatively and replaced postoperatively with a suprapubic catheter [11], and in one either a Foley or a suprapubic catheter [15]. In seven studies the duration of catheterization was given: 24 h in three studies [40, 41, 43], “at least 2 days” in one study [14], “2–5 days” in one study [18], “72 h” in one study [32] and “5–7 days” in one study [11]. In one study a suprapubic catheter was left at least 2 days, until residual urine was less than 50 ml [14]. The management of residual urine was not mentioned in any of other studies.

Intraoperative fluid infiltration

In 12 studies (30.0%) fluid infiltration of the operating field was performed before the incision. A vasoconstricting solution was used in two studies (vasopressin in two [19, 47], adrenaline in two [16, 38]), and the type of agent used was not given in two studies [36, 41]. A mixture of anesthetics and vasoconstricting solution was used in six studies (lidocaine and adrenaline in four [21, 26, 33, 40], adrenalin and bupivacaine in two [22, 31]). It was unclear if infiltration was performed in the remaining studies.


Whether the colpotomy was performed with scalpel, scissors or cautery was not mentioned in any of the studies. In five studies the distance from the inferior margin of the incision to the external urethral orifice was given: 1 cm in two studies, 2 cm in two studies, and 1.5 cm in one study. In two studies the colpotomy was performed from the midurethra, in three from the urethrovesical junction, in one just below the meatus, and in one from the “proximal urethra”. In ten studies the incision was extended as far as the apex of the vagina or the cervix.

Instruments and techniques of dissection

For preparation of the cystocele before plication the following methods were used: “sharp” (three studies), “scissors” (two studies), “pointless detachment” (one study), “blunt or sharp” (three studies), and “scissors and blunt” (one study). In 30 studies (75.0%) no information was provided on this step of AC.

Tissue planes

Various terms were used to describe the vesicovaginal fascia and possibly other structures that were claimed to have been used for plication (Table 2).
Table 2

Structures used for plication


Number of studies (N = 40)

Fibromuscular layer


Pubocervical fascia


Endopelvic connective tissue


Vesicovaginal fascia


Pubovesicocervical fascia


Pubocervicovaginal fascia


Endopelvic fascia


Endopelvic fascia (fibromuscular layer)


Prevesical tissue


Underlying muscularis


Vesical connective tissue


Vesicovaginal muscularis tissue


Double layer: posterior wall of the bladder and paravesical fascia




No information


Anatomical landmarks

In 14 studies the anatomical limits of the preparation were mentioned and were described as follows: “median border of the decent pubic rami” (three studies), “the lateral sulci” (two studies), and (one study each) “inferior brim of the symphysis pubis”, “inferior pubic ramus”, “limits of pubic rami”, “pubic rami”, “the level of vaginal sulcus and urogenital diaphragm”, “ischio-pubic rami”, “the bladder base”, “vaginal sulci and proximally” and “white line“.

Plication techniques and suture material

In 19 studies (47.5%) interrupted sutures were used. The characteristics of the sutures are presented in Table 3. In one third of the studies no information was provided on the type of suture material, and a diverse range of suture materials were used in the remainder. The number of stitches was given in two studies [11, 31] but no information was provided on the length of the stitches or the distance between them.
Table 3

Suture characteristics


Number of studies (N = 40)






 Chromic catgut




 PDS or polyglactin


 Polyglactin + Prolene


 Not stated







 Absorbable or nonabsorbable


 Absorbable + nonabsorbable


 Not stated







 Braided + monofilament


 Not stated







 0 or 2-0


 0 + 2-0




 Not stated







 Purse string


 Not stated


Number of sutures

 Four to six


 Two figures of eight


 Not stated


Vaginal trimming

In 18 studies trimming of the vagina was mentioned: trimming performed (12 studies), trimming optional/as required (three studies), and no trimming (three studies). In 22 studies no information on trimming was provided.

Vaginal closure

In 19 studies the material used was reported: Vicryl 2-0 (16 studies), and absorbable/delayed absorbable (three studies). A continuous suture was used in 12 studies (unlocked in two, locked in six, and no information in four) and interrupted suture in five studies (figure of eight in one, and overlapping for “prevention of trimming” in one).Intraoperative cystoscopy was mentioned in four studies (10%). In two, the cystoscopy was performed according to protocol, and in two according to the surgeon’s preference [33, 40].

Perioperative estrogen

Preoperative application of estrogen was mentioned in seven studies [10, 13, 25, 33, 41, 46, 48]. In two studies it was used in postmenopausal women for 4–6 weeks before surgery and for 3–4 weeks after surgery. In three studies the postoperative use of estrogen was recommended, but the duration of the proposed therapy was not mentioned. In one study 74% of the patients were treated with local estrogen preoperatively. In one study local estrogen at the time of study inclusion until 3 months after surgery was recommended.


Anesthesia was described in eight studies (20.0%) as follows: spinal (two studies), “in 90% spinal” (one study), regional (one study), doctor’s preference (one study), general (one study), epidural or spinal (one study), and general or regional (one study).


The number of surgeons was reported in 15 studies and ranged from 1 to 22. In one study “two surgeons performed the majority” of the operations, in five studies many surgeons and/or many centers participated, but the number of surgeons was not reported. Whether surgery was performed by a qualified urogynecologist was not reported in any of the studies. In nine studies (22.5%) some information was provided concerning the surgical team with the following heterogeneous descriptions: “same surgical team”, “surgeons with trainees”, “all qualified”, “experienced surgeons”, “house staff and one of three study surgeons”, “senior residents under supervision of the two senior authors“, “surgeons, supervised by a single physician“, and “surgeons from eight hospitals, who met at two workshops“.


This review shows that even within the strict boundaries of RCT protocols, there is wide variation in the preoperative, procedural and postoperative steps in AC, which has been seen as a quasistandard for a very long time. A detailed description of colporrhaphy was not provided even in the well-conducted RCTs, and even the most basic anatomical structures used in the repair were unclear in many studies.

A recent Cochrane review [50] compared AC with native tissue and other techniques (including biological grafts and meshes). The review included 33 RCTs and over 3,300 procedures, and showed that all other techniques provide only minimal advantage compared with native tissue repair. Native tissue repair was associated with reduced risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI), reduced bladder injury, and reduced rates of repair surgery for prolapse, SUI and mesh exposure. Although it did not evaluate the differences in “traditional” AC, this review highlights the continuing importance of AC as the evidence is not supportive of the use of mesh or graft in preference to native tissue for repair of anterior compartment prolapse.

The 40 RCTs included in this review were from all continents (Table 1), and the review proved the hypothesis that “classical” colporrhaphy does not exist. The problem of standardization in surgery is a well-known and a widely discussed issue in the medical community. It seems plausible that standardization of the surgery all over the world is either not always possible or even meaningful. However, the growing adherence to reporting guidelines for studies, such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) [51] and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) [52], is beginning to shape the landscape of research of innovations in surgery and other invasive therapies. It is indeed desirable to describe interventions thoroughly, including control interventions to minimize bias attributable to the imprecision of a poorly standardized operation. The description should allow a clinician wanting to use the intervention to know exactly how to perform the intervention that was evaluated in the trial [53, 54].

The Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up (IDEAL) collaboration has been established to improve the quality of research in surgery, and it recommends that each procedure, including established ones, should be monitored with prospective databases [55]. These recommendations seem absolutely applicable and important for AC. We included only RCTs as they provide level one evidence for surgery. In these studies AC was used as a control intervention for many new surgical techniques for the repair of cystocele, including synthetic meshes. Often due to the failure of colporrhaphy, the studies favored the new surgical technique. However, in light of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning concerning problems with transvaginal mesh, AC using native tissue for prolapse repair still plays an important role in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. This review demonstrated that the operation referred to as “anterior colporrhaphy” is not the same procedure worldwide, and we need a more precise description to be able to evaluate outcomes and possible reasons for failure. We not only found many differences in each step of the procedure, but also in perioperative care, anesthesia and surgeons’ experience. These are all important factors influencing the outcome of the operation.


This review showed not only differences in each step of the AC procedure, but also in perioperative care, anesthesia and surgeons’ experience. These are all important factors influencing the outcome of the operation. The review highlights the problems concerning AC, which are most likely applicable to other surgical interventions. There is diversity in the anatomical structures used in the repair, in perioperative care and in the procedure itself. On the way to global communication of research results to improve patient outcomes, we should increasingly be aware that standardization of surgery is an important item on the agenda. Exact and replicable descriptions of the procedure and assessments of surgical performance should therefore be mandatory in every study of surgery and especially in future RCTs.



Open access funding provided by Medical University of Vienna.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Brown JS, Waetjen LE, Subak LL, Thom DH, Van den Eeden S, Vittinghoff E. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;186(4):712–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Billingham R, Kobashi KC, Peters WA. Reoperative pelvic surgery. New York; Springer; 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lensen EJM, Withagen MIJ, Kluivers KB, Milani AL, Vierhout ME. Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a historical review with emphasis on the anterior compartment. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1593–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    White GR. Cystocele: a radical cure by suturing lateral sulci of vagina to white line of pelvic fascia. JAMA. 1909;53:1707–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weber AM, Walters MD. Anterior vaginal prolapse: review of anatomy and techniques of surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:311–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lensen EJ, Stoutjesdijk JA, Withagen MI, Kluivers KB, Vierhout MB. Technique of anterior colporrhaphy: a Dutch evaluation. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:557–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bergman A, Ballard CA, Koonings PP. Comparison of three different surgical procedures for genuine stress incontinence: prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160:1102–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liapis A, Pyrgiotis E, Kontoravdis A, Louridas C, Zourlas PA. Genuine stress incontinence: prospective randomized comparison of two operative methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;64(1):69–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kammerer-Doak DN, Dorin MH, Rogers RG, Cousin MO. A randomized trial of Burch retropubic urethropexy and anterior colporrhaphy for stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(1):75–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benson JT, Lucente V, McClellan E. Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(6):1418–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Colombo M, Vitobello D, Proietti F, Milani R. Randomized comparison of Burch colposuspension versus anterior colporrhaphy in women with stress urinary incontinence and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. BJOG. 2000;107(4):544–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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):1357–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA. Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:1299–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scotto Di Palumbo V. Four-corner bladder and urethral retropubic suspension versus anterior colporrhaphy in the correction of stress urinary incontinence with urethrocystocele 3-4. Randomized clinical trial. Urogynecol Int J. 2003;17;2:57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP. A randomized controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG. 2004;111(1):50–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gandhi S, Kwon C, Goldberg RP, Abramov Y, Beaumont JL, Koduri S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of fascia lata for the prevention of recurrent anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2004;23(5/6):558.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meschia M, Pifarotti P, Bernasconi F, Magatti F, Riva D, Kojancic E. Porcine skin collagen implants to prevent anterior vaginal wall prolapse recurrence: a multicentre, randomized study. J Urol. 2007;177:192–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hiltunen R, Nieminen K, Takala T, Heiskanen E, Merikari M, Niemi K, et al. Low-weight polypropylene mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(2 Pt 2):455–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nguyen JN, Burchette RJ. Outcome after anterior vaginal prolapse repair. Randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(4):891–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Allahdin S, Glazener C, Bain C. A randomized controlled trial evaluating the use of polyglactin mesh, polydioxanone and polyglactin sutures for pelvic organ prolapse surgery. J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;28(4):427–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tantanasis T, Giannoulis C, Daniilidis A, Papathanasiou K, Loufopoulos A, Tzafettas J. Anterior vaginal wall reconstruction: anterior colporrhaphy reinforced with tension free vaginal tape underneath bladder base. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(4):464–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sivaslioglu AA, Unlubilgin E, Dolen I. A randomized comparison of polypropylene mesh surgery with site-specific surgery in the treatment of cystocoele. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19(4):467–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guerette NL, Peterson TV, Aguirre OA, VanDrie DM, Biller DH, Davila GW. Anterior repair with or without collagen. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:59–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carey M, Higgs P, Goh J, Lim J, Leong A, Krause H, et al. Vaginal repair with mesh versus colporrhaphy for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2009;116(10):1380–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tincello DG, Kenyon S, Slack M, Toozs-Hobson P, Mayne C, Jones D, et al. Colposuspension or TVT with anterior repair for urinary incontinence and prolapse: results of and lessons from a pilot randomized patient-preference study (CARPET 1). BJOG. 2009;116(13):1809–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lunardelli JL, Auge AP, Lemos NL, Carramão Sda S, de Oliveira AL, Duarte E, et al. Polypropylene mesh vs. site-specific repair in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: preliminary results of a randomized clinical trial. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2009;36(3):210–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hviid U, Hviid TV, Rudnicki M. Porcine skin collagen implants for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized prospective controlled study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):529–34..CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feldner Jr PC, Castro RA, Cipolotti LA, Delroy CA, Sartori MG, Girao MJ. Anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial of SIS graft versus traditional colporrhaphy. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(9):1057–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER, Kudish BI, Gutman RE, Peterson JL, et al. Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:293–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Altman D, Vayrynen T, Engh ME, Axelsen S, Falconer C; Nordic Transvaginal Mesh Group. Anterior colporrhaphy versus transvaginal mesh for pelvic-organ prolapse. New Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1826–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vollebregt A, Fischer K, Gietelink D, van der Vaart CH. Primary surgical repair of anterior vaginal prolapse: a randomized trial comparing anatomical and functional outcome between anterior colporrhaphy and trocar-guided transobturator anterior mesh. BJOG. 2011;118(12):1518–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dahlgren E, Kjolhede P; RPOP-PELVICOL Study Group. Long-term outcome of porcine skin graft in surgical treatment of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. An open randomized controlled multicenter study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(12):1393–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Menefee SA, Dyer KY, Lukacz ES, Simsiman AJ, Luber KM, Nguyen JN. Colporrhaphy compared with mesh or graft-reinforced vaginal paravaginal repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1337–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Withagen MI, Milani AL, den Boon J, Vervest HA, Vierhout ME. Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Pt 1):242–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    El-Nazer M, Gomaa I, Ismail Madkour W, Swidan K, El-Etriby M. Anterior colporrhaphy versus repair with mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a comparative clinical study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:965–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wei JT, Nygaard I, Richter HE, Nager CW, Barber MD, Kenton K, et al. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2358–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Delroy CA, Castro Rde A, Dias MM, Feldner PC, Bortolini MA, Girao MS. The use of transvaginal synthetic mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse repair: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1899–907.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    de Tayrac R, Cornille A, Eglin G, Guilbaud O, Mansoor A, Alonso A, et al. Comparison between trans-obturator trans-vaginal mesh and traditional anterior colporrhaphy in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: results of a French RCT. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1651–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zargham M, Alizadeh F, Tadayyon F, Khorrami MH, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Gharaati MR, et al. Concomitant surgical correction of severe stress urinary incontinence and anterior vaginal wall prolapse by anterior vaginal wall wrap: 18 months outcomes. J Res Med Sci. 2013;18(7):588–93.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tamanini JT, de Oliveira Souza Castro RC, Tamanini JM, Castro RA, Sartori MG, Joao M. Treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse with and without polypropylene mesh: a prospective, randomized and controlled trial - Part I. Int Braz J Urol. 2013;39(4):519–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Turgal M, Sivaslioglu A, Yildiz A, Dolen I. Anatomical and functional assessment of anterior colporrhaphy versus polypropylene mesh surgery in cystocele treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(2):555–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gupta B, Vaid NB, Suneja A, Guleria K, Jain S. Anterior vaginal prolapse repair: a randomized trial of traditional anterior colporrhaphy and self-tailored mesh repair. S Afr J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;20(2):47–50.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, Kinne I, Jakobsson U, Teleman P. Anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. BJOG. 2014;121:102–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Minassian VA, Parekh M, Poplawsky D, Gorman J, Litzy L. Randomized controlled trial comparing two procedures for anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33:72–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Robert M, Girard I, Brennand E, Tang S, Birch C, Murphy M, et al. Absorbable mesh augmentation compared with no mesh for anterior prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):288–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dos Reis Brandão da Silveira S, Haddad JM, de Jármy-Di Bella ZI, Nastri F, Kawabata MG, da Silva Carramão S, et al. Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):335–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(11):CD004014.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;24;8:18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. 2009;147:573–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336:1472–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, Reeves BC, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374:1097–104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374(9695):1105–12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ksenia Halpern-Elenskaia
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wolfgang Umek
    • 1
  • Barbara Bodner-Adler
    • 1
  • Engelbert Hanzal
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of General Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations