Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- 1.3k Downloads
Pelvic organ prolapse is a prevalent condition, with up to 12 % of women requiring surgery in their lifetime. This manuscript reviews the treatment options for apical prolapse, specifically. Both conservative and surgical management options are acceptable and should be based on patient preferences. Pessaries are the most commonly used conservative management options. Guided pelvic floor muscle training is more beneficial than self-taught Kegel exercises, though may not be effective for high stage or apical prolapse. Surgical treatment options include abdominal and vaginal approaches, the latter of which can be performed open, laparoscopically, and robotically. A systematic review has demonstrated that sacrocolpopexy has better long-term success for treatment of apical prolapse than vaginal techniques, but vaginal surgery can be considered an acceptable alternative. Recent data has demonstrated equal efficacy between uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension at 1 year. To date, two randomized controlled trials have demonstrated equal efficacy between robotic and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Though abdominal approaches may have increased long-term durability, when counseling their patients, surgeons should consider longer operating times and increased pain and cost with these procedures compared to vaginal surgery.
• Pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) with a physical therapist is the best approach to conservative management of apical prolapse .
• Pessaries should be managed with regular follow-up care to minimize complications [14•].
• Minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy appears as effective as the gold standard abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) [42•].
• Robotic assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) and laparoscopic assisted sacrocolpopexy (LASC) are equally effective and should be utilized by pelvic floor surgeons based on their skill level and expertise in laparoscopy [44, 45•].
• Uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) and sacrospinous ligament suspension (SSLS) are considered equally effective procedures and can be combined with a vaginal hysterectomy.
• Obliterative procedures are effective but are considered definitive surgery [24••].
• The use of transvaginal mesh has been shown in some studies to be superior to native tissue repairs with regard to anatomic outcomes, but complication rates are higher. Transvaginal mesh should be reserved for surgeons with adequate training so that complications are minimized.
KeywordsPelvic organ prolapse Apical support Apical suspension Sacrocolpopexy
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Alexandriah N. Alas and Dr. Jennifer T. Anger each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 9.•Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, et al. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):981–7. A RCT demonmstrated that formal pelvic floor therapy is more benificial than self-taught Kegel exercises. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Walters MD, Karram MM. Urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Mosby Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
- 14.•Anger JT, Scott VC, Kiyosaki K, et al. Quality-of-care indicators for pelvic organ prolapse: development of an infrastructure for quality assessment. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(12):2039–47. With limited evidence to support propper pessary management, an expert panel recommended pessary visits every six months to minimize complications. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.•Wiegersma M, Panman CM, Kollen BJ, et al. Pelvic floor muscle training versus watchful waiting or pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POPPS): design and participant baseline characteristics of two parallel pragmatic randomized controlled trials in primary care. Maturitas. 2014;77:168–73. An ongoing RCT is comparing pessary treatment to formal pelvic floor physical therapy and to observation alone. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Miller NF. A new method of correcting complete inversion of the vagina. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1927;44:550–4.Google Scholar
- 23.Margulies RU, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Fenner DE, McGuire EJ, Clemens JQ, Delancey JOL. Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol: Elsevier; 2008:678.e1-.e4.Google Scholar
- 24.••Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;31(10):1023–34. This RCT, was a 2 × 2 factorial design which randomized patients to perioperative pelvic floor physical therapy versus no intervention in the first randomization, and then to sacrospinous versus uterosacral vault suspension. There was found to be no benefit to pelvic floor therapy, and both surgical intervention had equivalent success at two years. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Administration UFaD. FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. US Food and Drug Administration 2008. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm. Accessed 3 Sept 2014.
- 30.Administration UFaD. FDA safety communication: update on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. US Food and Drug Administration 2011. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm079028.htm. Accessed 3 Sept 2014.
- 31.•AUGS Position Statement on the Restriction of Surgical Options for Pelvic Floor Disorders 2013. Available from: http://www.augs.org/guidelines-statements. Accessed 3 Sept 2014. After the FDA vaginal mesh warning, the American Urogynecological Society released their position statement. They stated that the FDA warning only applied to vaginal prolpase mesh, and not to abdominal or incontinence slings. They also stated that choosing to use such devices should be a descision made between the patient and the surgeon.
- 33.•Su T-H, Lau H-H, Huang W-C, Hsieh C-H, Chang R-C, Su C-H. Single-incision mesh repair versus traditional native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse: results of a cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(7):901–8. At one year, use of a single incision vaginal prolapse mesh kit improved anterior compartment outcomes, but not outcomes in the posterior or apical components. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.•Rapp DE, King AB, Rowe B, Wolters JP. Comprehensive evaluation of anterior elevate system for the treatment of anterior and apical pelvic floor descent: 2-year followup. J Urol. 2014;191(2):389–94. This small cohort demonstrated significant improvent in both objective and subjective outcomes at two years using a single incision anterior vaginal mesh kit. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.•Charles Nager MD. Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures - Randomized Trial (SUPeR). Available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01802281. Accessed 3 Sept 2014. This ongoing RCT will compare vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral vault suspension to hysteropexy using a sacrospinous mesh kit evaluating three year outcome data.
- 38.•Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24. A multicenter RCT demonstrated that treatment failures for abdominal sacrocolpopexy after seven years are more than previously reported. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.•Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014. A Cochrane review found that although sacrospinous ligament suspension had less pain and shorter operating time, it also was associated with more apical prolapse reocurrances than abdominal sacrocolpopexy. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.•Akyol A, Akca A, Ulker V, et al. Additional surgical risk factors and patient characteristics for mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(5):1368–74. A retrospective study demonstrated that the greatest risk factors for mesh erosion after abdominal sacrocolpopexy were in those patients with ≥ stage 3 prolapse, previous or concurrent hysterectomy, or more than three procedures performed concomitantly. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.•Nosti PA, Umoh Andy U, Kane S, et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):33–7. A retrospective study demonstrated no significant difference in outcomes between minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.•Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A. 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(3):377–84. In a multicenter, two-sided equivalence trial, there was found to be no difference in patient satisfaction or recurrent prolapse at one year between abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.•Gracia M, Perello M, Bataller E, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014. doi: 10.1002/nau.22641. A small prospective trial demonstrated that total laparoscopic hysterectomy with cervicopexy had higher success than hysteropexy with anterior and posterior mesh strips. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.•Anger JT, Mueller ER, Tarnay C, et al. Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):5–12. A multicenter RCT demonstrated that laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy have equal subjective and objective sucess at six months. CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 48.•Zebede S, Smith AL, Plowright LN, Hegde A, Aguilar VC, Davila GW. Obliterative LeFort colpocleisis in a large group of elderly women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(2 Pt 1):279–84. This is the largest retrospective study to date, which reported high anatomical success and patient satisfaction with LeFort colpocleisis with minimal complication rates. PubMedGoogle Scholar